Prostitution
 - Question

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to the report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee on Prostitution (Third Report, Session 2016–17, HC 26); and in particular, the recommendations on (1) decriminalising soliciting; and (2) amending brothel-keeping laws to allow independent sex workers to operate together indoors for safety.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, following the committee’s report, the Government commissioned research on the prevalence and nature of sex work. This did not lend itself to clear recommendations on a new approach. We continue to engage with the police and others, with a focus on reducing the harm that can be associated with prostitution. We know there are links between brothels and organised criminal gangs and have no plans to amend legislation in this area.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: I thank the Minister for his Answer. I note that the Independent reported in December that the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on prostitution and sex work said he was working alongside the Government to reassess the brothel-keeping legislation particularly. His words were
“I don’t think that is helpful.”
This occurs, of course, in the context of the cost of living crisis. To quote a sex worker from Leeds:
“We’re in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and although sex work is legal there aren’t any regulations and safe places for people to work legally, and the wages haven’t gone up at all. Survivalist sex work is a massive issue”.
In December, the talk was of action.

Noble Lords: Question!

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: If you will let me. The talk in December was of action. Are the Government going to urgently look at this question, particularly in light of the cost of living crisis?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The noble Baroness is quite right. The DCC and the Safeguarding Minister had an introductory conversation at the end of January in which they discussed all those issues. The Safeguarding Minister highlighted that the Government are not minded at present to seek to change the law, based partly on a lack of unequivocal evidence. On the cost of living crisis, we are obviously extremely concerned  to hear of women who feel they have no other choice but to turn to sex for survival. We are committed to ensuring that no one finds themselves in this position.

Lord Watts: My Lords, the Minister’s response is just inadequate, given the situation. He says that he accepts there are major problems but is doing nothing about it. When will he come forward with a plan to deal with this problem?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, after the committee’s report, we commissioned some research by the University of Bristol in association with the police and crime commissioner for south Wales. I am afraid that report did not deliver any unequivocal evidence, as I have just said. The evidence from other jurisdictions where a different approach is tried is also not unequivocal so, for the moment, things are going to stay the way they are.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, I am looking forward to the day when sex workers pay their fair share of tax—unlike some I might mention. Those tax revenues would be more secure if they could work safely with simple, practical measures like two sex workers working together without risk of prosecution for pimping each other out. Successive Governments have turned deaf ears to the plight of sex workers, while the men who exploit and abuse them get away scot free. Is there any chance this Government will behave any differently?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, the National Police Chiefs’ Council updated its guidance in 2019. It is important to note that that guidance prioritises safety over enforcement action in terms of the criminalisation of these practices. It is incredibly important that this guidance is followed because it advises forces to focus on how to make those involved in sex work safe and to conduct risk assessments before enforcing brothel-keeping legislation. As to tax, I am not going to comment.

Lord Bird: I look forward to the day when we do not have sex workers. What is the Government’s attitude on working towards getting rid of the reason why people are driven into sex work, which is nearly always the slavery of poverty?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, it is fair to say that it is the oldest profession, so I suspect that we will never get rid of it entirely, which is of course regrettable. In terms of poverty, our strategy—with all the things that are being done at the moment to alleviate that—is fairly clear.

Baroness Browning: Some 25 years ago, I co- chaired the Women’s National Commission as the government co-chair, in which over 100 women’s organisations were represented. As I am sure my noble friend the Minister knows, this is not a new problem, whatever the state of the economy. Among those over-100 women’s organisations, there was everything  from Army wives to the English Collective of Prostitutes, so I feel that I have a little insight into some of their problems. One of the biggest difficulties for any Government wanting to make changes here—and I do support such changes—is finding the right premises, because, to put it bluntly, nobody wants one next door. If my noble friend is serious about making some progress on this, does he agree that the Government should address that problem?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My noble friend is quite right. However, this is an evolving problem, and there are a number of practices that take place now that would not have happened when she was involved in this subject herself, including online activities and so on. Again, I do not think that it is appropriate for me to comment on housing, but I understand where she is coming from on that subject.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to online activities, and, indeed, most sexual services in the UK are now facilitated, advertised and negotiated online. These websites have been identified as a space where offenders and human traffickers can coerce and force individuals into selling sexual services. Are the Government taking any action on the role adult websites are playing in human trafficking and sexual exploitation?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My noble friend is right to bring up the subject of adult services websites. We recognise that criminals can and do use prostitution and sex work to target and exploit vulnerable people for their own commercial gain. Adult services websites are the most significant enabler of sexual exploitation linked to trafficking, so we are developing, across adult services agencies, a websites approach and we are investing additional resources to support the police. It is important to come back to an earlier question: we are also tackling demand by targeting users of adult services websites to raise awareness of sexual exploitation on those sites through the use of things such as Google ads.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, carrying on from the last question, the police on one occasion took me around north London for an evening and, as we were leaving, they pointed out a considerable number of brothels in the Tottenham area, in which, they said, the people were almost all trafficked women. This is a very serious matter, and if there are to be premises for women—and sometimes for men—to work, does the Minister agree that we must bear in mind that a great many of them have been trafficked?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I think that the noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right; it is something we need to be aware of. Again, a lot of this comes down to reducing demand for sexual services. It is worth point out that the improved guidance has highlighted that Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act makes it illegal to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to
“force, threats … or any other form of coercion, or … deception.”
That is a strict liability offence, meaning that it is not a valid defence that the defendant did not know that the prostitute had been subject to force or coercion. That should probably be more widely known.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, the Minister has already mentioned the Government’s own report from the University of Bristol published in 2019, which said that “a substantial proportion” of women engaging in sex work did so for financial reasons, with the decision often influenced by
“caring responsibilities, … lack of access to … benefits and support services”,
and lack of access to health services. From the Minister’s responses to previous questions, it is clear that, since 2019, the Government have not done anything—or have they? If so, can he tell us what it is?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, as I tried to explain earlier, part of the problem is that the gathering of evidence to support any particular course of action is proving very difficult. The 2019 review conducted by the University of Bristol had the strengthening of the evidence base as one of its remits, which was one of the Select Committee’s recommendations. But the nature of prostitution makes it very difficult to estimate the prevalence accurately, and the research was unable to identify a single estimate. The nature of this work is evolving and changes completely, and has done over time.

Baroness Bull: The Minister will be aware of other models internationally, from full decriminalisation in New Zealand to the sex purchase law in Sweden. What assessment have the Government made of their applicability or otherwise in the UK?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The noble Baroness will be aware that there is also a different legislative approach across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, where all buying of sex has been criminalised and the selling decriminalised. However, to go back to an earlier point, I am afraid that we have yet to see unequivocal evidence that any one approach is better at tackling harm and exploitation, and that remains our priority. We will continue to monitor the implementation and impact of the changes in Northern Ireland, but as yet there is insufficient evidence.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, soliciting in public by a woman for sexual purposes is illegal. Has any progress been made on criminalising the men who approach the women, who are also soliciting?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Of course, some offences are associated with that already, in particular things such as kerb-crawling.

Lord Morrow: My Lords, no doubt the Minister is aware that the majority of women who are trafficked are trafficked into the sex trade. He has made reference to the Northern Ireland position; I steered a Private Member’s Bill through the Northern Ireland Assembly  on this very subject. Would he be prepared to consider what has happened in Northern Ireland, which endeavours to give much more—if not complete—protection to women who are trafficked into the sex trade?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: As I intimated earlier, we will continue to monitor the situation in Northern Ireland closely, as well as the other international models such as the Nordic and New Zealand ones, so that work will not stop.

Domestic Abuse: Defence for Victims who Commit an Offence
 - Question

Bishop of Gloucester: To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the commitment by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar on 3 February 2021 (HL Deb col 2286) to “regularly reassess the effectiveness of any law and associated practices in protecting victims”, what recent assessment they have made of the need to review the existing defences for individuals whose offending or alleged offending results from their experience of domestic abuse.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, we are determined to protect and support victims of domestic abuse and bring perpetrators to justice. During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, we committed to undertake a review of defences to homicide where the offender was a victim of domestic abuse. That review, undertaken by Clare Wade KC, highlights several important and complex issues. I understand that the Government will publish that review very shortly, together with their views on its recommendations and the next steps.

Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and for naming Clare Wade’s review, and I look forward to hearing more. At least 60% of women supervised in the community or in custody have experienced domestic abuse. I meet them regularly when I visit prisons in my role as Anglican Bishop for prisons. Will the Minister say when a Victims’ Commissioner will be appointed to protect the interests of all victims, including those who are themselves accused of offending?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I cannot give a date for the appointment of the next Victims’ Commissioner but I think it will be made as soon as possible.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does the Minister agree that new action needs to be taken to tackle domestic violence, and will he accept the merits of introducing a new domestic violence register to track offenders and help protect victims? It would be similar to the sex offender register and have similar administration, and it would protect women from domestic violence.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, the Government are making progress on the whole issue of domestic abuse; we have the 2021 Act and the 2022 Home Office plan for tackling domestic abuse. There is also greater awareness among the police, the CPS and the judiciary of these issues. I cannot commit to introducing a domestic violence register but that is certainly one matter to be considered.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Act was landmark legislation; it improved national understanding of domestic abuse and its appalling consequences. However, the rejection of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the right reverend Prelate and others, which were the context of the commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, left serious unfinished business. Successive lockdowns and the cost of living crisis have taught us more about the terror of victims trapped in homes with their abusers. Of course we will await Clare Wade’s report, but surely now the Government can recognise that victims should be convicted of offences of violence against their abusers only if they use force that is grossly disproportionate.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I do not wish to pre-empt the contents of the Wade report or the Government’s response. The broad position is that the Government are not yet persuaded that a change in the law is needed in relation to homicide or other offences, but are very much open to further consideration of these very difficult issues.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, it is right to say that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made the commitment that has been referred to as a result of amendments which I had put forward, with the assistance of the right reverend Prelate and others in this House. The concern is that there has been evidence that women are disproportionately convicted of murder, because the way in which defences to homicide have been designed has not taken account of their experiences. Provocation and diminished responsibility are measured in ways that do not take account of that experience. We want to hear urgency from the Front Bench: will it be done with speed?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, these are difficult issues and I completely understand the concern of the noble Baroness and others who have raised them. Taking the law into one’s own hands is a very big step and there should be a very high bar to taking life, whatever the circumstances. The question of whether one should change the law on the defence of homicide is complicated and the Government will continue to consider it.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, do the Government recognise the role that alcohol abuse has in the perpetration of domestic abuse, including severe domestic abuse? The spring Budget provides an opportunity to correct some of the relative drop in its price, particularly of low-cost alcohol, which is consumed in great quantities and contributes greatly to domestic abuse situations which then escalate completely out of control.

Lord Bellamy: The Government are well aware of the effects of alcohol on the whole problem of domestic abuse, but I am afraid I cannot comment on the forthcoming Budget.

Lord Morgan: My Lords—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords—

Lord Morgan: It is a privilege for a Back-Bencher to be allowed to speak. One of the important bodies that takes a keen interest in this area and gathers a great deal of evidence is Victim Support. Can the Minister kindly tell us what kind of relationship or connection the Government have with that body?

Lord Bellamy: As far as I know, the Government work as closely as they can with all organisations, including the one that the noble Lord mentions.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I only stood up because no one else seemed to have done—which is my forte. To be serious, my noble friend Lady Kennedy asked an important question about the speed with which the Government are considering this. The Minister gave the usual Civil Service reply: that everything is being considered. Will he now try to answer properly her question?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I cannot give a timetable, and I respectfully disagree with the description of a Civil Service reply: this is the Minister’s reply. In this case the Minister, who happens to be me, is very conscious of the real issues here. When the report from Clare Wade KC is available, we will see a discussion of these issues and a certain recommendation.

Lord Bird: As we have a bit of time, I should like to tell your Lordships something quite horrible: I almost killed my father for almost killing my mother. The Minister said that life is precious and we should look after it, but what my father had done to my mother over many years was to destroy her humanity. If we could somehow have awarded my father an early death, it would have done us all a great favour.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I am conscious of the emotion and the difficulties and severe situations that many have experienced with this issue. The underlying question here, which I do not think we can really discuss in detail today, is whether some enhanced form of self-defence is an absolute defence to a homicide case, or whether the available partial defences of manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, diminished responsibility, loss of control et cetera are sufficient—and where the balance should be. That is a very difficult question.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, when I was in the Home Office in 2007, I was appalled and shocked by the level of domestic violence in this country and the huge number of women killed in such incidents. It was not my precise area of responsibility but I did ask  what was being done. I was told, “We’re making a lot of moves to make things happen”. This was in 2007. It seems that this just goes on and on. As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, we really have to get on with this. It is a most dreadful thing within our society.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I too am appalled and shocked by the existing situation. But I submit that we are making quite good progress with the 2021 Act, the Home Office review and much greater awareness among the police, the CPS and the judiciary. We are also working with women in prison on these various issues.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as the Minister is unable to answer the question about the timetable for the appointment of the Victims’ Commissioner, could he at any rate take back the importance of a Victims’ Commissioner being in post, especially at a time when we are considering so much which should be considered from the point of view of victims?

Lord Bellamy: I will of course take that back.

Disabled People: Impact from Policies and Spending Cuts
 - Question

Baroness Thornton: To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to assess the impact of their (1) policies, and (2) planned spending cuts, on people with disabilities, to ensure that they do not exacerbate existing inequalities.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, the Government recognise the barriers that disabled people face across many aspects of their lives. All government departments have rigorous processes in place, in line with the public sector equality duty to ensure that they consider proactively the impacts on disabled people when carrying out their day-to-day work in shaping policy and delivering services. This includes the Treasury, which carefully considers the equality impacts, including for disabled people, of the individual measures announced at fiscal events.

Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister for his Answer. This Question concerns the wider issue of impact assessments being used to guide government policy for disabled people, and is not just around vital income support. First, is an impact assessment being conducted, or has one been proposed, to look at the impact that Home Office immigration rules are having on the supply of personal assistants for working-age disabled people to allow them to be economically independent? Secondly, is an impact assessment being carried out, or has one been proposed, on the effects of the proposed modernisation of the railways on the mobility of wheelchair-users and people with sight impairment, many of whom are very worried about this?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The first thing to say is that there are no plans for impact assessments. What I can say to reassure the noble Baroness and the House is that much work has been done to take account of the extra costs that are required for those who are disabled. The extra-cost disability benefits have been uprated every year since their introduction, in line with inflation; these benefits were also exempt from the recent benefits freeze. Over 1.3 million more people of working age are in receipt of an extra-cost disability benefit since May 2013. On her final point about transport. we have done a lot of work on the transport issues. For example, we have enacted the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 and published guidance on inclusive mobility and tactile paving, and there is more that I could say.

Lord Farmer: My Lords, my understanding is that Access to Work grants for disabled people are beset with significant delays. For example, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People says that many are waiting close to four months for initial claims to be processed or renewals to be approved. This has a knock- on effect on the support workers they rely on, who understandably may refuse to take bookings from them as they will not get paid. Will my noble friend the Minister say what the Government are doing to cut delays?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I agree with my noble friend that there have been delays, and perhaps I can give a little thought to this. One matter to note is that the Access to Work systems are currently receiving an increased level of applications for support—for example, there are 24,677 cases. On what we are doing about this, DWP has taken a number of actions: all applications for a job to start in the next four weeks are prioritised, renewal applications are also prioritised where possible, and support is approved using a new streamlined process. We have also increased the number of staff working on Access to Work. We are very aware of the delays and are taking some action.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Are the Government minded to implement Section 28(8) of the Equality Act 2006, which would give the commission the powers to bring disability discrimination cases to court?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: Although I cannot confirm that, I know that the commission examined whether my department was making reasonable adjustments to its processes for people with mental health conditions and learning difficulties, as required under the Equality Act 2010. As the noble Baroness will know, the EHRC published a statement on 19 April about drawing up a legally binding agreement with the DWP to commit it to an action plan.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I declare my interest: a 42 year-old family member has recently become an amputee, so I have seen at first hand the desperate situation that many suffer, particularly in residential care. We are prepared to pay up to £2,000 or £3,000 a week for residential care but not for  independent accommodation. Therefore, if the Minister considers an impact an assessment—I am disappointed to hear that he is not doing so—will he consider the impact on disabled people, particularly those with physical disabilities? Given local authorities’ depleted housing stock, they may need to rely on private housing. Will the Minister give some assurance that he will at least look at that?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I reassure the noble Baroness that we understand that people across the UK, including those who are disabled, are worried about the cost of living—she mentioned housing and other matters. She will know that we have provided £37 billion-worth of cost of living support in this financial year, including a cost of living payment of £150 for the disabled. We have provided up to £650 for low-income households and £300 for pension households —both of these groups have large numbers of disabled people.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, other noble Lords have spoken about some of the problems inside DWP. I will ask about PIP and applicants who have been disallowed it because they “didn’t return the form”. In 2017, 7,500 claimants were disallowed but, by last year, that had risen to over 42,000. The problem is that, even though many of these people were marked as vulnerable, some have died: Laura Winham starved to death, and it took three years for her body to be found—she was not the only person. What systems is DWP putting in place to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable disabled people?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The noble Baroness is right to raise PIP. We are targeting support at those with the greatest needs, as she raised. PIP exempts a household from the benefits cap and is uprated by CPI, and it is payable regardless of a person’s employment status. On her particular points, I am pleased to say that we continue to see an improvement in the way that we look at and pay PIP, and particularly in the clearance times—the noble Baroness will know that there have been some delays. I will write to her on her specific question about the content. As I say, the delays are very much a priority for my department at the moment.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I take the Minister back to his answer on personal assistants. When we were taking evidence in the Adult Social Care Committee on the provision of personal assistants, it became perfectly obvious that there is a real crisis for those people who do not want to ask their families to care for them and who would really benefit from personal assistants. One lady we spoke to had employed 27 personal assistants in the course of a year, none of whom could stay with her because they could not afford to. What is the Minister going to do, if he is not going to do an impact assessment, to find out what is actually going on in the lives of these people, particularly in an area where the data is extremely short and where we also know that people are having to take on personal assistants and then act as small businesses to try to organise their national insurance? For many, that is a huge burden.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The noble Baroness raises an important point. I think it might be helpful to remind her that the Minister for Disabled People announced on 1 December last year that a new disability action plan will be consulted on and published in 2023. The groups the noble Baroness mentioned will be part of that. It will set out the immediate action the Government will take in 2023 and 2024 to improve disabled people’s lives, as well as laying the foundations for a longer-term change. The plan will reference the work already being taken forward by individual government departments, but I know that there is more to do in this area and she is right to raise it.

Baroness Janke: My Lords, a decade of tightening eligibility for out-of-work sickness benefits on top of cuts to rates means that disabled people are now far more likely to be found incorrectly fit for work than awarded benefits they do not need. When will the Government take action to do something about this injustice?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: We certainly keep this under review. The noble Baroness will know that SSP is administered and paid entirely by employers, at a rate of £99.35 per week. Employers are required to pay it, but as I say, this matter is kept under constant review.

Lord Touhig: My Lords, we all know that the cost of living crisis and pressures on public services are affecting families across the country, but the impact on families with disabled children is particularly acute and often not well highlighted. What assessment have the Government made of the effect of their current spending plans on the level of support for disabled children and their parents?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I do not have any figures on disabled children but I can say that, in the year 2022-23, we will be spending around £65.7 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions in Great Britain, including children. This is around 2.6% of GDP. Spending on the main disability benefits—PIP, DLA and attendance allowance—will be more than £7 billion higher in real terms than it was in 2010.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation in Hotels
 - Question

Lord Howarth of Newport: To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to discontinue the practice of accommodating asylum seekers in hotels.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The Home Office is working to reduce the Government’s dependency on hotels for contingency accommodation through a package of long-term and short-term measures. The full dispersal model increases the number of suitable properties that can be procured for destitute asylum seekers across the United Kingdom.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, the Immigration Minister admitted in January that some 200 child asylum seekers were missing. Will the noble Lord admit that the abduction by criminal gangs of these children placed in hotels represents a disastrous failure of responsibility by the Home Office? Does he also acknowledge that the Home Secretary’s inflammatory language effectively licensed the far-right racists and bullies who besieged the Suites Hotel in Knowsley and are planning other brutalities? More than two months ago, the Prime Minister said that enough is enough and promised to end the use of hotels as quickly as possible. What steps, on what timetable, will the Government take to fulfil that promise?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I will deal first with the question about UASCs. As I updated the House in an earlier answer, of course unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are not detained or in any way restrained from leaving hotels. If they choose to leave, they can do so. There is no evidence to suggest that 200 people have been kidnapped, as the noble Lord appears to suggest. Of course it is a matter of great concern when unaccompanied asylum-seeking children go missing, and there are protocols in place, as I have already informed the House, in relation to involving the police in their relocation. On the second point he raised, there is certainly nothing to be achieved by the use of language which exacerbates the issue, but the problem around the accommodation of asylum seekers in hotels is caused by the large numbers of people crossing the channel. Finally, on the question of what steps are being taken, as I have already said, the Home Office is implementing the full dispersal model in an attempt to house those in hotels in private rented accommodation and, as announced in April last year, the intention is to do that fairly across the local authorities across the United Kingdom.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, surely the key to solving the hotel crisis is to break the business model of the people traffickers. The only way to do that is with the French, through close intelligence co-operation and a shared policing initiative. Obviously the £63 million announcement in November to ensure that British police are posted on to French beaches is a move in the right direction. How much of that deployment has taken place, and will this be on the agenda for the forthcoming summit between our Prime Minister and President Macron?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: My noble friend is right that breaking the business model of the people smugglers is vital, and the agreement we recently made with the French Government will go some way to achieve that. The other aspect will be the forthcoming Bill in relation to stopping the small boats, and I look forward to the support of all those in the House when it comes before your Lordships.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we have hotels accommodating young asylum seekers, although we want to bring that to an end. Are the Government satisfied that their contracts with the providers deal properly with their safeguarding responsibilities? Will the Minister publish the results of the Home Office’s  monitoring and supervision—as I hope that it is doing—of the providers’ performance, including checking that the many staff involved are properly DBS checked?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The contracts with the three providers, who then engage the hotel accommodation, are of course commercially sensitive and the Home Office cannot therefore publish their contents. However, I am satisfied that sufficient safeguards are built into those contracts, and I reassure the noble Baroness that there is a requirement that all staff are appropriately DBS checked.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, only yesterday the Minister, in reply to a Written Question, gave very precise figures for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children placed in hotels and for the numbers who had gone missing. Will he therefore give us a better indication of when more suitable accommodation will be found for such people?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have arrived on a small boat are first referred to the Kent intake unit. Then there are five specific hotels for the use of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and as soon as possible they are transferred to the care of local authorities. This is clearly a priority and it is obviously a very important matter. I take on board entirely what the noble Lord said.

Lord Harrington of Watford: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Homes for Ukraine scheme has led to 150,000 refugees from another country being settled in this country in people’s homes, while Afghans who came a year prior to that are still largely in hotels. Will the Minister look at the Homes for Ukraine scheme, see what lessons can be learned, and make sure there is a standing scheme of sponsorship and hospitality which will take refugees from wherever the Government decide they should come?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Of course I will look at the proposal that my noble friend recommends. The Homes for Ukraine scheme is different from Afghan applications for asylum in that it is anticipated—and indeed encouraged by the Government of Ukraine—that those Ukrainians will return to Ukraine after the danger has passed.

Lord Coaker: It was never supposed to be like this. The Government’s use of hotels is a result of a catastrophic failure of their policy. People are waiting years for an asylum decision, and we now have hundreds of children going missing. Alongside that, we have right-wing extremist groups using these hotels as a way to foment community disunity. What are the Government going to do to tackle right-wing extremism and deal with the policy that is leading to these problems in the first place?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Clearly, the instances of violence we saw in Knowsley last week were to be deplored. Indeed, the House will be reassured to know that the Home Office has in place a careful programme  to deal with these issues. It is hoped that those in hotels can feel secure as a result of knowing that the Home Office has in place arrangements to protect asylum seekers, but of course that has to be balanced against the liberty of people to protest. These are all matters being carefully considered by the department.

Bishop of Durham: My Lords, slightly contrary to what the Minister said earlier, surely one of the main reasons hotels are being filled is because accommodation is being blocked, in a sense, because so many applications have not been processed in due time. Could the Minister update us on the reduction in the numbers awaiting their claims being dealt with, as was promised in January? Have they been reduced, and by what number?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am afraid that I must disagree with the right reverend Prelate. The reason for the number of people in hotels is the number of people crossing the channel illegally and causing accommodation to be needed. It is not simply a question of a failure to determine their asylum claims, not least because those whose claims are determined are then accommodated by local authorities in very similar types of housing.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, those statistics are not correct. The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee showed that, from quarter 2 in 2017 to quarter 2 in 2022, applications were up by 103%, but in the same period the backlog had quadrupled, particularly for those waiting over six months. The committee came to the conclusion that the slow processing of applications had been a bigger driver of the increase in the backlog than the number of applications. Why does the Minister not know that, and why does he not start dealing with that issue, which is causing people to be held in hotels?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The question we are addressing today is about the reason for the number of people in hotels, and I say again that the reason is the number of people crossing the channel. When we bring forward our Bill, the message will go out and the business model of the people smugglers will be smashed. I encourage the noble Lord to support the Bill.

Fan-led Review and Football White Paper
 - Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 20 February.
“Our national game has become a worldwide sport, loved and followed by millions. The growth of the Premier League, English football’s top division, is an achievement to be celebrated. Our grass-roots game is a force for good to bring people and communities together across the country. However, the findings of the fan-led review made it clear that the underlying financial and governance structures that support English football are unstable and fragile. The review highlighted the perverse financial incentives that encourage clubs  to overspend on chasing success. I pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, Tracey Crouch, for her considerable work in this area.
The issue is exacerbated by poor corporate governance. Some clubs lack scrutiny of decision-making, are poor at communicating with fans, and lack transparency in decision-making. Defective industry self-regulation throughout football has led to a high and growing risk of financial failure among clubs. Indeed, one of my first meetings as the Minister for Sport was with fans’ groups. I heard at first hand how poor ownership and governance can leave clubs at the mercy of careless owners.
This structural weakness, along with the risk of breakaway competitions such as the European Super League, threatens the stability of the football pyramid as a whole and risks leaving fans powerless and our national game in peril. The unique importance of football clubs to their fans and local communities means that the social cost of financial failures and the loss of clubs would be significant. That includes the risk of irreversibly damaging our valued cultural heritage.
Reform is needed to avoid those failures and prevent those impacts arising. It is clear that the game is in need of significant reform. As I have stressed to the football authorities on several occasions, there is much that football could already be doing to protect the game. This includes reaching a much-needed agreement on a new package of financial redistribution for the football pyramid, and, again, I urge them to solve this issue.
The Government responded to the fan-led review in April 2022, and we will publish a football governance White Paper this week. This will set out a clear and well thought-through package of reforms that will ensure that the foundations of the game are strong and the game can continue to thrive.
I make a commitment that Ministers will come before the House to make a Statement with a full announcement on how we intend to reform our national game for the future and for fans, and we look forward to ensuring that honourable Members have the opportunity to fully scrutinise those proposals.”

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the publication of the White Paper responding to the fan-led review has been promised more times than Brighton & Hove Albion has suffered from dodgy VAR decisions.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was expecting a bit of support. This is no laughing matter, actually, because we have had 13 years of government prevaricating and dithering on this issue. We have had an excellent report produced by Tracey Crouch in another place. I am wondering whether the Secretary of State is going to be able to publish the White Paper this week, as was promised just yesterday. In the meantime, clubs such as Bury, Derby, Southend, Scunthorpe and Crawley have all had very unfortunate financial situations obliged upon them by owners. This is really important, and we   need to get it right. There needs to be a fully effective football regulatory body at the core of the White Paper. Can we have from the Government today a definitive answer, first, that the paper is going to be published this week and, secondly, that we will have legislation before the next general election?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, this is indeed an important matter. That is why it was a manifesto commitment, why the Government acted on it, why we commissioned Tracey Crouch to lead the fan-led review, why we accepted in principle the strategic recommendations she made and why we are grateful to everyone who gave their thoughts towards it. The Government have been at the forefront of work to reform our national game and ensure that it is fit for the future. The importance of this to clubs such as the ones the noble Lord mentioned is well known. The review that Tracey Crouch led shone important light on several significant and complex issues. It is right that we have given them due attention and we will be publishing our White Paper later this week and legislation will be set out in the usual way.

Lord Addington: My Lords, if the Minister agrees that there is no other show in town, will he make sure that these clubs have a realistic future and take this opportunity to not only produce the paper and legislation but to state exactly what the Government want back from the clubs? We have this wonderful hub within the community to support grass-roots football and other sports. Will the Government make sure to let everybody know, if they are going to make this change, that they will be undertaking that these clubs take action that supports grass-roots sport and not simply youth teams used to select talent?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I do not entirely agree that this is only show in town. While it is important, and the White Paper will set out more detail, we have said all along that clubs need not wait for that White Paper or for a regulator to be up and running to get their own house in order. There are things that the football authorities can and should take forward, such as financial redistribution throughout the football pyramid. We have urged them to do that in the meantime and continue to do so. The noble Lord is right that this is an important area and that is why the White Paper will set out the work that the Government are taking forward.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, the Minister mentions the football pyramid. I point out that on an average weekend more supporters attend Football League matches than Premier League matches. Will he give the House an assurance that when the Government publish the White Paper this coming Thursday, supporters and the Football League will get precedence over the Premier League?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: Financial redistribution throughout the pyramid is important to help clubs of all sizes and at every level. Our position  has always been that an industry-led solution to the issue is the ideal. We have been pushing the Premier League and the EFL to come to a resolution on this issue and continue to urge them to do so. If no deal is forthcoming, it is clear that action will be needed to find a solution that protects the game, and we will set out more detail in the White Paper.

Baroness Grey-Thompson: My Lords, I draw attention to my register of interests. I know the Minister is aware that I authored the independent review into duty of care back in 2017. One of the things I asked for was an ombudsman. Bearing in mind all the governing bodies that have been in the press, as well as the fan- led review, is now not the right time to raise sports governance up the political agenda and implement at least some of the recommendations that were made?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I was grateful to have the opportunity to discuss safeguarding with the noble Baroness and others in a recent debate about sport in the Moses Room. She is right that these matters are vital to make sure that everybody can participate in and enjoy football. The White Paper will set out some of the work that the Government will be taking forward but on these issues work must continue in other streams as well.

Lord Grade of Yarmouth: My Lords, will the Government take the opportunity of this discussion about the governance of football to address one of the great scandals of the professional game, which is the many millions of pounds that leak out of football to agents? Hundreds of millions of pounds throughout Europe find their way from supporters’ pockets into the hands of agents. When I was an agent in the talent business, the artist paid the commission, not the producer. This is a terrible scandal and this is an opportunity for somebody to commission a report to understand just how much money is leaking out of football into the hands of agents, who contribute absolutely nothing.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: We are grateful to those who invest in football but we want to ensure that the money flows throughout the pyramid to encourage people to nurture talent, take up the game and play it to the best of their ability. The White Paper will set out some of the work that we are doing to take that forward, but we will be mindful of my noble friend’s points.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, will the Government’s White Paper deal with issues such as the ownership of Birmingham City Football Club? It is owned by a company that is registered in the Cayman Islands and its shares are traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Its single largest ownership block appears to be a Mr Wang Yaohui, a fugitive from China who now resides as a Cambodian diplomat but whose name does not appear to have any substantial listing in the club at all. What are fans meant to do when we have this appalling ownership structure with no transparency?

Lord Austin of Dudley: Support Villa.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: So far, the football authorities have washed their hands of this.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The Government are fully aware of issues such as those raised by the noble Lord. Sadly, there are too many examples of why action is needed to reform football governance and make clubs sustainable in the long term. Through tougher tests for owners and directors, we intend to ensure that clubs have suitable custodians with suitable business plans. Later this week, the White Paper will set this out in more detail.

Baroness Manzoor: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say now and through the White Paper what is going to happen to tackle issues around equity, racism and discrimination in the game, particularly regarding stronger regulations and codes of conduct?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: We want everybody to enjoy the national game, whether they are spectating or playing it; great work is being done to open the game up and ensure that, no matter their background, everybody can do so. There is our review of women’s football, which is finally receiving the attention that it has deserved for so long and inspiring young girls around the country to play football. All of this is important.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, is not one of the most crucial factors affecting football clubs—indeed, the whole of the professional game—the chasm that exists between the Premier League and everyone else, as my noble friend mentioned? I just want to know what, if anything, the Government plan to do to deal with this. It has a catastrophic effect on clubs being relegated from the Premier League, which lose not only money but, nine times out of 10, their attendances and their best players. We also know about the multi-million-pound game in the play-offs, which results in a team getting into the Premier League, or not, from the Championship. This really is a poison at the heart of the system. I suppose I should declare an interest as a long-time season ticketholder at Stoke City.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: We are proud to have many world-class players and clubs in this country. We are grateful to those who invest in them and nurture rising talent in the game, but an important part of doing that is ensuring that the finances flow through the pyramid and inspire people at every level. More details will be set out in the White Paper.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, when we last discussed this, I mentioned a report that was produced for the Council of Europe and deals with the questions of agents, financial disparity in clubs, and fans’ participation. The Minister had not read that report; I hope that he has now done so. I am being very modest in not saying who wrote the report, but I hope that some of its excellent suggestions will be included in the White Paper.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, I am afraid that I still have not read it but I think I undertook last time to make sure that my right honourable  friend the Sports Minister was aware of it. I have done so. I will look at it as soon as I have read the White Paper, which is out later this week.

Public Order Bill
 - Third Reading

Clause 10: Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services

Amendment 1

Baroness Sugg: Moved by Baroness Sugg
1: Clause 10, page 11, line 14, at end insert “at an abortion clinic”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment and the following amendments in the name of Baroness Sugg clarify that in order for an offence to be committed under subsection (1) of Clause 10, the person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of that subsection must be in the safe access zone for the abortion clinic in relation to which they are accessing, providing or facilitating the provision of abortion services.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 I will speak briefly to the other amendments in my name, all of which are clarifying amendments.
Amendments 1 to 4 make it clear that for an offence to be committed under Clause 10(1), the person mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (1)(c) must be in the safe access zone for abortion clinics. Amendment 5 is a change in wording though not in intent, to follow current Ministry of Justice practice to refer only to a fine, as is done elsewhere in this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Sugg. I will not repeat the comments made on Report. However, given that these are helpful tidying-up, administrative amendments, it is appropriate to put on record my very serious concerns about Clause 10.
I still have reservations about the sui generis nature of the proposal, particularly the use of “influence” in Clause 10(1)(a). Including this subsection in the legislation is an extremely slippery slope. This will come back to haunt the House and the Government in due course, not least because the clause is unnecessary. It is legislation by anecdote and a knee-jerk reaction to lived experience, rather than empirical evidence, not least because there is existing legislation in place and, as I mentioned before, there are PSPOs—which, incidentally, do not work. The two notable cases raised in the debate earlier this month have resulted in no criminal action and their dismissal, because the threshold for criminality and prosecution was not being met in those unique cases, involving a minister of religion and a Christian activist.
The clause will result in stigmatisation, hostility towards and, eventually, the criminalisation of, one group of people: Christians. I do not think that is what the vast bulk of your Lordships would wish to happen. The clause is pernicious and a fundamental assault on freedom of speech and thought. Although it cannot  be stopped and this Bill will get Royal Assent, it is timely and appropriate for some of us to make the case that this is bad law. It is stigmatising a small group of people who are not fashionable, and it will come back to haunt in due course all of us who care very deeply about freedom of speech.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what my noble friend has just said. I am grateful, as we all are, to my noble friend Lady Sugg, who has made a genuine effort to improve things since the first time she moved her amendment. That should be, and I think is, acknowledged throughout the House.
As my noble friend Lord Jackson said, we are potentially on a slippery slope here, because the stigmatising of someone who privately prays and does not necessarily say anything at all is very dangerous. We sometimes debate what happens in other countries, and although this is a long way off Chinese practice, it is going in that direction. We should be very careful. The law as it stands, without Clause 10, is adequate to deal with any problems that might arise. I can see that they might from time to time, but I do not believe that the “sledgehammer to crack a nut” approach is the right one. As my noble friend said, the Bill will go on the statute book. It will accompany many other imperfect pieces of legislation that we really should not have allowed through your Lordships’ House.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich: My Lords, I want to say three things. First, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for the remarkable job she did after the contentious committee hearing on this clause. She forged a result which, although certainly not perfect, and which continues to evoke strong feelings, had the support of a very great majority of your Lordships.
Secondly, I thank the Minister for taking on board Amendment 9, which is surely not controversial but mends the hole in this Bill by ensuring that the same incidents are not taken into account for successive serious disruption prevention orders.
My third point is also addressed to the Minister, but I suspect more particularly to his ministerial colleagues. On both stop and search and serious disruption prevention orders, your Lordships’ House has not obstructed clear government policy but has found a way—with the benefit of our collective experience—to leave the police with the powers the Government say they need, while removing the excessive and unnecessary elements of each power. The things we removed are no-suspicion stop and search and the power to trigger SDPOs on the basis of activity that does not meet the criminal threshold.
I remind the Minister that all this was passed with overwhelming Cross-Bench support. All three amendments on these subjects were signed or supported by two Lord Chief Justices, two further judges of our highest court and a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, who, in my experience, knows exactly what he is talking about on these issues. The three amendments collectively attracted 162 Cross-Bench votes, with only eight against. Of course, these Benches are only a small part of the House, but not one, I hope, that anyone would willingly  confuse with a crypto-anarchist front. I believe that the Minister, with his own policing experience, will see the force of these views, and I ask him to convey that to his colleagues in the Commons. I hope that this Bill can become law without tiresome ping-pong and with these amendments in place.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, we wholeheartedly support all the amendments in this group. Noble Lords often talk about the tremendous work the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has done on this Bill, although I realise they have not said it in those terms.
It may come as a surprise to Members of this House that I consider myself to be a Christian. I rather overdid it: I was baptised as an infant; then I became a Baptist and was baptised by total immersion; and then I went to Oxford and was confirmed in the Church of England. It was belt and braces as far as I am concerned. This legislation is not anti-Christian and, in respect of people who privately pray, my understanding is that prayer works very effectively outside of a 150-metre radius of an abortion clinic.
I have to apologise to the House: I should have been on my guard on Report. I refer to the debate on 7 February, when the Minister talked about the Government having tabled amendments
“which seek to allay some of the concerns expressed by your Lordships.”
I think the Minister knows what is coming. He went on to say that the second amendment, Amendment 58,
“reduces the relevant period of past conduct which is considered for SDPOs from within five years to within three years … It is the Government’s view that these amendments represent a substantive offer and address the main criticisms of SDPOs”.—[Official Report, 7/2/23; cols. 1147-48.]
Regrettably, when it came to Amendment 58, the Minister “not moved” his own amendment. I was not quick enough to intervene to rescue it, so that amendment is lost. It was not part of an amended part of the Bill, so it cannot be amended here at Third Reading, and it cannot be amended in the Commons either. As I said, I apologise for not being quick enough to spot that mistake. Having said that, we support all the amendments before the House today.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, we too support all the amendments today. I open by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for all her work on this matter; I know that she has worked tirelessly between both Houses and both sides of this House. I am glad that we have reached this point and, to that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said: plenty of Christians support the amendments and there are a number I know who would take exception to people describing them as somehow not as good Christians as those who wish to protest by praying within 150 metres of an abortion clinic. It is perfectly clear that you can pray wherever you like, but outside 150 metres of an abortion clinic.
I would like to reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who talked about the strength of the votes at earlier stages of the Bill. He highlighted stop and search and SDPOs, and the strength of  support from across the Cross Benches, including from many very senior former judges. I hope that when the Minister wraps up, at this stage or the next, he says something or gives us some hint about how far the Government will go in recognising the concerns that this House has expressed.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, subsequent to Report and ahead of today’s Third Reading, the Government have brought a number of clarificatory technical amendments.
First, during the debate on Report on 7 February, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked for clarification, as he has referred to, that a second or subsequent serious disruption prevention order made in respect of the same person could not be founded on trigger events that had already been taken into account for the purposes of a previous order. I confirmed that that was indeed the Government’s intention. In this spirit, the Government have today brought an amendment clarifying that position within the legislation. I hope noble Lords are satisfied with that legal clarity and I thank the noble Lord for his remarks.
Finally, on Report, your Lordships voted to remove from the Bill Clause 11 on suspicionless stop and search, and Clause 20 on serious disruption prevention orders made otherwise than on conviction. As a result, the Government have brought tidying amendments that are consequential to those amendments. I will not speculate further on what may happen later.
Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendments 2 to 5

Baroness Sugg: Moved by Baroness Sugg
2: Clause 10, page 11, line 16, after “services” insert “at an abortion clinic”Member's explanatory statementSee the amendment in the name of Baroness Sugg at page 11, line 14.
3: Clause 10, page 11, line 19, at end insert “at an abortion clinic”Member's explanatory statementSee the amendment in the name of Baroness Sugg at page 11, line 14.
4: Clause 10, page 11, line 19, at end insert—“where the person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is within the safe access zone for the abortion clinic.””Member's explanatory statementSee the amendment in the name of Baroness Sugg at page 11, line 14.
5: Clause 10, page 11, line 36, leave out “not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”Member's explanatory statementA level 5 fine in England and Wales is unlimited. This amendment clarifies that this is the intended effect of this provision by bringing the drafting in line with current Ministry of Justice practice to refer only to “a fine”, as is done in other places in this Bill.
Amendments 2 to 5 agreed.

  
Clause 12: Further provisions about authorisations and directions under section [section removed]

Amendment 6

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
6: Leave out Clause 12Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).
Amendment 6 agreed.

  
Clause 13: Further provisions about searches under section [section removed]

Amendment 7

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
7: Leave out Clause 13Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).
Amendment 7 agreed.

  
Clause 14: Offence relating to section [section removed]

Amendment 8

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
8: Leave out Clause 14Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 11 (powers to stop and search without suspicion).
Amendment 8 agreed.

  
Clause 20: Serious disruption prevention order made on conviction

Amendment 9

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
9: Clause 20, page 21, line 28, at end insert—“(c) P’s conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) has not been taken into account when making any previous serious disruption prevention order in respect of P.”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment clarifies an uncertainty in the Bill regarding the conditions for making a serious disruption prevention order. It clarifies that a previous conviction or breach may not be taken into account if that conviction or breach has already been taken into account in respect of the making of any earlier serious disruption prevention order.
Amendment 9 agreed.

  
Clause 21: Provisions of serious disruption prevention order

Amendments 10 and 11

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
10: Clause 21, page 23, line 7, leave out from “20(5)” to end of line 8Member's explanatory statement  This amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
11: Clause 21, page 23, line 37, leave out from “of” to end of line 38 and insert “section 20(6)”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Amendments 10 and 11 agreed.

  
Clause 27: Variation, renewal or discharge of serious disruption prevention order

Amendments 12 to 14

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
12: Clause 27, page 27, line 12, leave out paragraph (d)Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
13: Clause 27, page 27, leave out lines 17 to 22Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
14: Clause 27, page 28, line 40, leave out “or a constable within subsection (3)”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Amendments 12 to 14 agreed.

  
Clause 28: Appeal against serious disruption prevention order

Amendments 15 and 16

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
15: Clause 28, page 29, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3)Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
16: Clause 28, page 29, leave out lines 31 and 32Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the removal at Report stage of what was clause 20 (serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction).
Amendments 15 and 16 agreed.

  
Clause 33: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment 17

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
17: Clause 33, page 31, line 35, leave out “sections 8 and 13” and insert “section 8”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom that leaves out Clause 13.
Amendment 17 agreed.

Motion

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Bill do now pass.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, perhaps I may detain the House a little longer to mark the end of this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. It has been a wide-ranging debate, with much scrutiny across three days of Committee and two days of Report.
I must express the Government’s disappointment at the removal of some very important measures, the aim of which was to support the police in better responding to the sort of disruption which has been impacting the public going about their daily lives. Those amendments will now be considered in the other place and we will no doubt be debating them again soon.
Notwithstanding that, I want to take this opportunity to recognise the contributions of those who have supported me in steering the Bill through the House. I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Davies of Gower. I also express my thanks to noble Lords on the Government Benches for giving this Bill the scrutiny that the public expect. I thank the Front Bench opposite for its engagement on the Bill, accepting that there have been some areas of disagreement between us. I expect nothing less, of course, of these noble Lords. The noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, have been passionate advocates for their causes throughout this process.
In a similar vein, I would like to thank the Liberal Democrat Peers who have been very active during the course of the weeks we have been engaged with this Bill, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—though I am not entirely sure I thank him for drawing attention to my small administrative oversight.
I also single out the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for providing lucid and thought-provoking legal analyses of the Bill. I recognise the important contributions of Cross-Benchers such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.
Given its wide scope, many other noble Lords have also contributed to the many hours of debate on this Bill. There are too many to mention now but, again, I extend my thanks to all noble Lords for their scrutiny of this important Bill.
We have been supported by officials at the Home Office, as well as by lawyers and analysts. On behalf of myself and my ministerial colleagues, I extend our thanks and appreciation to all of them for their professionalism over these past months. I also thank the teams in our private offices.
There should be no doubt about the merits of the Bill’s ultimate objectives: namely to better balance the rights of protesters with the rights of individuals to go about their lives free from disruption or harm. Blocking motorways and slow walking in roads delays our  life-saving emergency services, stops people getting to work and drains police resources, and the British people are rightly fed up with it. It is more important than ever that the Bill moves swiftly to become law.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I thank the Minister and his Bill team for listening to at least some of the concerns noble Lords have raised, and for the way in which they have responded to them. When similar restrictions on protests were considered by this House in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, the Government were defeated on 14 occasions. This time, the Government were defeated eight times, but that was only because we did not feel there was enough time to vote against other measures that we were very concerned about. However, I thank the Minister and his team. I thank Elizabeth Plummer in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, who has supported me throughout. I thank His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for the constructive way in which noble Lords of the Labour Party have worked together with us to ensure that the democratic right to protest has been maintained.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I start with some brief remarks. I very much thank the Minister, his colleagues on the Government Front Bench and the Bill team for their help and time during the passage of the Bill—including today’s clarificatory amendments which the Minister brought forward. It is an example of how this can and should be done, even when there are genuine disagreement between us. The briefings and discussions we had helped inform debate and, I hope, have led to better legislation—which is indeed what we all want. I thank the Minister very much for that; it is much appreciated.
I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his support and important contributions. I say to the Chamber that he brings a calmness to my more excitable character, which is extremely helpful. In thanking him, I also thank our office for its support, and in particular, over the last few weeks, Liz Cronin. I thank many of my noble friends for their contributions to this debate, particularly my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his colleagues, and I thank him for the remarks he just made. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the contributions she has made, and a number of Cross-Benchers—including the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who has been mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others.
To those very senior former judges, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I say that I very much appreciated my crash course in the law; I hope that I have appeared to know what I am talking about, which is always a start. The interventions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and those of many of the other senior judiciary members who we have here, make a huge contribution to the difficult debates that we have, even where we disagree between ourselves. This is an extremely important Bill and the debate will no doubt continue as it returns to the other place for its consideration of our changes.
I want to emphasise—the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned this—that the debates here and the changes made reflect a genuine attempt to address where the  line should be drawn between the right to protest and the right of others to go about their daily lives. It was not about those supporting a law-abiding majority and those putting the rights of protestors first. Across the world, democracy and the right to protest are non-existent or under threat. In our great democracy, tensions arise and anger around protests can sometimes, quite rightly, provoke public outrage. In seeking to deal with that, however, we must not, even inadvertently, damage freedoms that we all cherish.
I hope that the other place will reflect carefully not only on the actual amendments that we have made but on the debates that took place around them. They were debates, yes, on how we deal with the challenges emerging particularly from recent protests but also, crucially, on maintaining the democratic traditions of which we are all so rightly proud.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
 - Second Reading

Lord Callanan: My Lords, the public expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them. This Bill aims to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights and freedoms of the public to access essential services during those strikes.
The latest ONS data shows there were 843,000 working days lost because of labour disputes in December 2022. This brings the number of strike days lost between June and December to nearly 2.5 million, which is the highest since 1989. Industrial action is disruptive for everyone: for those who rely on those essential services to get to work or care for their families, for the NHS trying to get the backlog down, and for schools trying to recover lost learning after the pandemic. It also, of course, vitally impacts on our local businesses, whose sales and productivity suffer.
While we are pleased that voluntary derogations were eventually agreed for the strike action in health sectors in December 2022 and early this year, I am afraid that is not guaranteed to be the case for future action or in all sectors. Indeed, during the ambulance service strikes in December and January, some derogations were not agreed until immediately prior to the strike action, leaving employers with sometimes only hours, not days, to implement full contingency plans. This creates a great deal of uncertainty for everyone concerned, including the staff, the public, patients and their families. Further, there is no guarantee that where derogations have been agreed the required numbers of staff will not strike on the day itself. This can create uncertainty and inconsistency across the country, and unnecessary risk to patient safety.
While I would emphasise that the Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is important—it is rightly protected by law—the recent industrial action has highlighted the disproportionate impacts that strikes  can have on the public. We need to be able to have confidence that when strikes occur, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at undue risk, and so do the public; that is why this legislation is needed.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill, which establishes a legal mechanism to implement minimum service levels for periods of strike action affecting certain services. It achieves this by making amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that add obligations relating to minimum service levels to the list of requirements necessary for the union’s strike action to be protected from liability in tort.
The legislation will enable minimum service levels to be implemented in key sectors via regulations. The key sectors specified in the Bill are broadly the same set that were defined as important public services in the Trade Union Act 2016, which have long been recognised as important for society to function effectively. The six key sectors are health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and border security. These are the right sectors, given the economic impacts of their potential disruption as well as the impacts on public safety and the ability of the public to go about their daily lives.
Regulations will be tailored to each relevant service to meet legitimate aims, such as safety, public health, access to work and to healthcare, among others. The Government believe it is only right that minimum service levels and the services they apply to are informed by consultations, as required by the Bill, and that there is parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations before they come into effect. This is why these regulations must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they can be made.
The Bill and subsequent regulations are designed to enable employers to specify the workers required via a work notice in order to meet minimum service levels during strikes within those relevant sectors. Should a union notify an employer of strike action in accordance with existing rules, the Bill will allow the employer to issue a work notice to the union, seven days before the strike, specifying those workers needed to work during the strike and the work that they will need to carry out to secure the minimum level of service.
Work notices must not include more persons than are reasonably necessary to meet the minimum service level and employers must not have regard to whether a worker is or is not a member of a union when producing the work notice. Employers must consult the union on the number of workers to be identified in the work notice and the work to be undertaken, and have regard to any of their views before issuing that notice. Each employer and union must also adhere to data protection legislation regarding those work notices.
To enable a minimum service level to be achieved on a strike day and where a work notice has been issued, a trade union must take reasonable steps to ensure its members, when named on a work notice, comply with it and therefore do not participate in the strike. What is considered “reasonable” will to an extent depend on each specific situation and could  include making it clear in its communications with members that, where members are named in a work notice and required to work on a particular day, they should attend work on that strike day. A union which fails to comply with this obligation could lose its protection against liability in tort.
Additionally, if an employee takes strike action despite being named on a work notice, they will lose their automatic protection against unfair dismissal for industrial action. While it is up to the employer, not the Government, as to whether disciplinary or legal action is taken in instances of non-compliance, these measures are necessary to enable employers to manage these situations in the same way as they would now with unauthorised absences or unprotected strike action.
The Bill ensures that minimum service levels align to existing law in respect of taking industrial action and associated legal protections. These provisions are needed to make minimum service levels effective where they apply. This legislation is not about sacking workers; it is about protecting people’s lives and livelihoods by enabling minimum service levels to be applied during strikes.
The Government have already released consultations on the minimum service levels for our blue-light ambulance and fire services and for rail services. These consultations ensure that the public and industry stakeholders, including employers, unions and their members, are all able to provide feedback on what the minimum service levels should be and how they are proposed to work.
Everyone wants to see an end to current strikes and we are doing all we can to negotiate fair and affordable pay settlements with the unions. But at the same time, we must act to protect the public for the future. This legislation is not about stopping or preventing strikes. It simply brings us into line with many other modern European countries, such as Spain and Italy, where minimum service levels are a common way to reduce the impact strikes can have on the public. However, we are not going so far as to ban strikes completely. We are taking a fair and reasonable approach by asking that, before a union takes strike action within a relevant service, they agree adequate voluntary arrangements of cover where they are necessary. Where this has not happened, we will introduce regulations to enable minimum service levels to be applied.
We are of course always mindful of and thankful for the contribution that public sector and other workers make to our country. But if trade unions continue to take disproportionate and potentially unsafe industrial action, we firmly believe that we need to take steps to protect the public. I beg to move.

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway: My Lords, this skeleton Bill, for which the Government have no manifesto mandate, would give the Secretary of State sweeping powers and deny proper parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. It also seeks to override the authority of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament. By attacking the fundamental freedoms of working people, it almost certainly contravenes international law, including ILO convention 87, which the UK signed up to.
Can the Minister confirm that the Bill ultimately gives the Secretary of State powers to set so-called minimum service levels for strikes at 80%, 90% or, indeed, 100%? In which case, would it not be more accurate and honest to title it the “ban strikes” Bill? This morning, the RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill a rating; it is red—“not fit for purpose”. The impact assessment published this afternoon says that there will be no impact on the UK-EU trade agreement and its level playing field clauses. However, as the Bill runs alongside other threats to worsen workers’ rights contained in the retained EU law Bill, it would be very unwise to rule out retaliation.
What we do know for sure is that the Government’s evidence base for the Bill is deeply flawed. Countries which Ministers commonly cite as comparators do not, in fact, impose minimum service levels by state diktat; nor do they give free rein to sack striking workers who refuse an order to work. Taking powers to strip nurses, teachers, firefighters, transport workers and others of their livelihoods, when they strike for better pay and conditions, is not generally regarded as a feature of a free society. Only now, at this late stage, are consultations being launched in some of the sectors covered. We do not know yet which employers and grades are affected, how those six sectors are precisely defined, or how many more sectors could be added in the future. What is clear is that arrangements for emergency cover are already agreed in good faith between employers and unions across a range of emergency services, and the Bill risks squandering all that good will.
I have spoken to workers who have been on strike or who have been balloted for action, including a firefighter union rep called Kasey. As a dedicated professional who puts her life on the line to keep us all safe, she asked, “What is the Bill really trying to achieve?” Kasey has a seven year-old daughter to raise and, with inflation running at over 10%, she is struggling to make ends meet. She, along with her colleagues, took the difficult decision to vote for strike action, and the FBU secured an 88% yes vote on a 73% turnout. On the back of that ballot result, the fire service employers have now returned to the bargaining table and improved their offer—but the Bill would pull the rug from underneath such negotiations. If, ultimately, the Secretary of State can unilaterally impose minimum service levels, and workers who do not comply can be sacked, where is the incentive on the employer to negotiate, let alone to come to a fair agreement? Many decent employers, alongside the TUC and the unions, say that the Bill raises more questions than answers, so perhaps the Minister can provide some.
What exactly are the “reasonable steps” which unions are expected to take to ensure that staff comply with work notices or face draconian attacks on their funds, and does this burden on unions also apply in respect of staff who are not union members? If a union is deemed not to have taken these undefined so-called reasonable steps, is analysis from the House of Commons Library correct to contend that all workers on strike in a given sector would lose protection against dismissal whether or not they are named to work?
Could workers who are required to work during a strike but who call in sick on the day be sacked, and what assessment has been made of the impact of such  sackings on our public service recruitment and retention crisis, including on workforce morale when it is currently at rock bottom? What would prevent unscrupulous employers using work notices to target and victimise elected workplace union representatives, or to discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of race, sex or any of the other protected characteristics?
Has the Minister considered the real-world consequences of the Bill? Anyone with IR experience can see that it would poison relations between employers and unions by rigging the balance of power still further against working people, and by seeking to frustrate the effective expression of legitimate grievances.
The UK already has some of the most draconian laws on strikes. However, in my experience, people will always find ways to stand up for justice for their families, their workmates and their communities. It is very likely that there would be more action short of strike action: work to rules, overtime bans, and potentially the disruption of mass sickies and spontaneous walkouts. Disputes would become prolonged, embittered and even harder to resolve, and the Bill would create trade union martyrs, causing more unrest.
I return to Kasey’s question: what problem is the Bill really trying to fix? After all, strikes are merely a symptom, not the cause, of discontent. After more than a decade of pay squeezes, deep funding cuts and now a record number of families turning to food banks, we can all see the pressure. We know the toll that takes on NHS staff, teachers and key workers right across the board, and that, as burned-out public servants leave for better paid and less stressful jobs elsewhere, the recruitment and retention crisis is only making public service backlogs worse. That is why a majority of the public believe that there is a better solution to the current wave of strikes against real-terms pay cuts. It lies in the Government’s own hands, and it is simple: Ministers should come to the table, in good faith, and negotiate.
This shoddy Bill is unfair, undemocratic and unworkable, and that is why Labour is committed to repeal it in its entirety.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, various circumstances may lead to legislation being rushed through Parliament. We might have to respond to international developments beyond our control: a conflict breaking out, or an urgent need to approve a treaty. There may have been an unexpected incident where it is clear that our current law is inadequate and there is cross-party agreement to work urgently to fill a gap. Alternatively, we may have a Government who find themselves in trouble and cook up some kind of legislative proposal so they can fill their media grid by appearing to be doing something.
There are no prizes for guessing which of those scenarios we on these Benches believe we find ourselves in today. There is no outside pressure or unexpected gap in the law, but we do have a Government who are floundering and seeking to distract attention rather than dealing with the real problems facing our country. I will focus on the crisis in health and social care in  my remarks, while other noble friends will speak to transport and broader concerns about industrial relations later.
First, I want to flush out one area which illustrates the hollow political intent behind this legislation. That is the Government’s attempt to sell it as a copy of what happens in other European countries. To hear this Government, of all people, ask for support for regulation on the basis of aligning with EU countries tells us either that they completely lack a sense of irony or that they actually want us to laugh at them. You can imagine someone in No. 10 getting excited about this angle as one which will confound those pesky Europhile Opposition politicians: “How can they oppose this if we point out that it is just like the EU countries that they love?” Gosh, you have really got us there; what can we say? Oh yes, we can say that this is nonsense. There might be an argument for saying that this is alignment if the Government were planning to import French, German or Spanish labour law wholesale, with works councils, collective bargaining and the whole kit and caboodle. Can the Minister confirm today what other elements of EU labour law the Government plan to adopt in the near future? But, of course, that is not what they are proposing, and their argument falls apart as soon as you recognise that each country has a unique way of managing relations between workers and employers that depends on a complex web of relationships and legal powers.
Let us turn to one of the areas that the Government say is a primary driver for the Bill: health and social care. There is as near to consensus as you ever get in politics that the biggest challenge facing our health and care sectors is a lack of staff to provide the services that we need. We discuss these staff shortages in this House continually, and the Government themselves agree that we cannot improve these essential services without solving them.
These shortages pile extra stress on to those who are having to cover gaps, making the idea of going into these essential roles even less attractive. The overriding priority for any Government faced with this situation should be to work at making these professions more attractive, and that does mean looking at pay, but also at the morale of the profession. What we are seeing from this Government is the opposite of that: they set out to give the impression that they are immovable on pay, that they have few ideas on staffing levels, and as icing on that hard cake they come up with this Bill as a warning to anyone who dares to challenge them.
There is nothing in this Bill that will lead to more health and social care staff being hired, but it rather represents another signal from this Government about how they intend to treat those who are employed in these essential services. Staff in the NHS taking industrial action feel caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are dedicated professionals who would rather be at work caring for people than on the picket line, but they are genuinely concerned that their living standards will keep eroding if they do not take a stand to defend them.
There is an opening for a positive discussion between the Government and those professionals about what a fair settlement would look like, and about how they can work together to ensure that there are adequate  staffing levels all year round to help patients and the staff themselves. Instead, under this Bill, the Government will be forcing conversations about staffing levels to happen under threat of sanctions. That is hardly conducive to good dialogue.
The Government have one more trick in their media playbook: the consultations they are running on minimum service levels that are engineered to be able to show public support. There is no option in the consultation to see whether people would rather the Government settled the dispute so that industrial action itself went away—something I suspect would have overwhelming public support in the case of NHS staff—and there is no attempt to explain the trade-offs and complexities involved in a mandated versus a mutually agreed approach.
The Government’s case is not that there has been a failure to provide baseline cover during recent strikes but that they want more consistency and prior notice. But if the price of that consistency is a worsening climate of hostility between employers and staff, we have to ask whether this is worth it. In sectors where there is a queue of people wanting to take on jobs, playing hardball like this might be defensible, but where those queues are empty and our overriding public goal has to be to fill them, this is a very high-risk strategy. As always, we do not wish for the Government to fail, but we would be remiss in our duty if we did not raise a flag where we think this is likely to be the case. The Government have had their announcement and shown that they are not taking the strikes lying down, but the price of following this approach to the bitter end is that it risks undermining their overwhelming priority, which is to improve public service staff recruitment and retention.
It is not too late for the Government to think again about where their time and energy should be best directed if we are to see meaningful, systemic improvements to health and social care rather than a mere manoeuvre past a bump in the road. The risk otherwise is that in pushing hard to establish mandated minimum service levels during industrial action, this very effort will contribute to being unable to maintain what are all too often inadequate levels of service in these vital sectors all year round.
I always find the impact assessments that come with legislation illuminating, and we received the one for this Bill today, which did not disappoint. It shows us another possible way forward. The first option is voluntary minimum service level agreements, with no government incentives, in key public services. The impact assessment suggests that similar benefits could be derived from voluntary agreements, with the main downside being that employers would need to offer incentives in return, perhaps in terms of pay and working conditions.
I close with a question to the Minister and ask him to explain whether this option to make a good-faith effort to negotiate more voluntary arrangements for strike cover was ever seriously explored. This would be a way both to guarantee services and to motivate staff to join and stay in these public services. I suggest to the Minister that in the current climate, we might get further by offering more carrots rather than waving ever-bigger sticks.

Lord Judge: My Lords, this is a troublesome piece of legislation. It asks us all a very simple question: when does the right to withhold your labour—that is, to strike—cease to be a right? It answers that question too, and the answer is a bit depressing: the right ceases when, following a ministerial decree, your employer can oblige you to work, and if you fail to do so you can lose your job. That is pretty stark. I am not going to try to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed legislation or the speeches we have just heard. I am more troubled by the idea that a unilateral change in the contracts of employment of thousands of people can be made by a piece of secondary legislation. That is all this Bill is. Forgive me.
Can we start with Clause 1? That is a good place to start, is it not? Here it goes:
“The Schedule … amends Part 5 and other provisions of the 1992 Act to restrict the protection … where provision has been made in regulations”.
It asserts that this is a Bill about regulation-making. It incidentally overrules legislation that came into effect under a Conservative Government—the 1992 Act. How is it done? The Secretary of State may make regulations; we keep being told that. But before we make any regulations, can we please remind ourselves that whatever regulations a Minister may choose to make, he can change them? Not only that: he can change any Act of Parliament. He can change not only any Act of Parliament but any Act of Parliament that we have not yet seen and may yet come before us before the end of this Session. So it is a power to get rid of legislation that we do not even have. It is a rather strange thing.
Now, what does the Secretary of State do? What is his responsibility? Let us look at it. His responsibility goes this far and—lamentably, I suggest—no further:
“Before making regulations … the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
He does not have to consult anybody. He can consult whom he likes. Even if he does consult people of admirable quality and dispassion, he does not have to take the slightest notice of them. That is an open-ended entitlement of the Secretary of State about how he should act. This is irrespective of overruling primary legislation. This notice which comes into effect will be produced by the Secretary of State as he or she thinks appropriate, without further consultation with anybody in the field of work, the trade union movement or anywhere else.
Having done that, he then happily drops out of the picture. What happens then, when the regulations have been made, within the six services? I declare an interest: my wife spent all her working life as a paediatric physiotherapist in the National Health Service, and my daughter and granddaughter are both teachers working in the public sector. An employer may give a work notice to a trade union, entitling the employer to identify the persons required to work and have at least this much of a consultation process, one step up from the Secretary of State:
“the employer must … consult the union about the number of persons to be identified and”—
good Lord—
“have regard to any views expressed by the union”.
The employer is not bound by them but must just “have regard to” them—that is an interesting phrase in legal terminology, and I do not wish to be the judge who has to decide whether the employer has or has not had regard to the particular views expressed by the union.
Finally, if you do not agree, paragraph 8(2) in Part 2 of the Schedule says that you can lose your employment if you do not go to work. I am not experienced enough to know, but, as a matter of sense, this dictation—from an employer against whom you are striking because the conditions he provides for you are unsatisfactory—does not sound like a recipe for a sensible solution to a difficult industrial dispute.
But, ultimately, it is the way that this legislation is before us. Once again, it deals with very important issues: this is an issue of great principle, and I understand why the Opposition say that, if they come to power, they will repeal this. This is an issue of great principle and moment for hundreds of thousands of people, and it is all being done hidden away in secondary legislation. This will not do.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to a debate that addresses six key areas, all of which address public safety. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady O’Neill further on in the debate.
With my noble friend at the Dispatch Box, I attended an all-party briefing meeting on the Bill two weeks ago, and I recall him saying, in the discussion about the Bill, that, despite putting this on the statute book, he hoped it would never be needed. This begged the question: why is it needed? In his opening remarks today, he gave an example of the ambulance service in strike mode, where there were very real concerns about the service that would be supplied. I am concerned that, across all six sectors, we have some form of safety net as far as the general public are concerned, notwithstanding my appreciation of people’s need to strike. I declare an interest: many years ago, I worked for the NHS in an operating theatre. On a personal basis—it was not because I was stinking rich that I could afford to do so—I would not have withdrawn my labour under any circumstances, and I did not: it was an emergency operating theatre.
I agree that there is tension here. Some of the most eminent trade unionists in the country are sitting in this Chamber—I notice the noble Baroness who opened for the Opposition—and they will have a lot of experience. It is quite right that they articulate that because this is a matter of tension, as is so often the case in legislation before this House. Just before this debate, we heard the tail-end of a Third Reading debate on abortion clinics. Tension between competing interests—firmly believed and firmly held views—is the nature of the work we do. At the end of the day, the Government have to use their judgment.
So I recognise that there is a tension between the Bill my noble friend has brought forward and the existing Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It looks as though the Bill will remove the protection and status from trade unions and workers in areas where minimum service levels are needed.  I just want to articulate, if I may, on a personal level. When I leave home and come here during the week, I leave behind carers in charge of somebody I love very much. The last time there was an ambulance strike, I basically said, as I went through the door, “Don’t take him out for a walk today.” That was because I did not want to put that additional risk into his life, because I knew things were really not good with the ambulances.
I have every respect for the ambulance service—I have had many occasions to be grateful to it personally—but that is how people out there feel, whatever their admiration, and there is a great deal of admiration for all those who work in our essential services. That is the mindset that is starting to creep in among people who have responsibility for others. It is, I hope, to relieve that mindset that my noble friend feels there have to be minimum service levels that not only the Government but the rest of us who care for vulnerable people, or who may have accidents or other things that happen to us during the course of the strike, can rely on. There is a creeping fear in this country about what may happen to me or my loved ones. It is a spill-over from the lockdown, I believe, but people are taking a lot more notice of their safety and their loved ones’ safety.
The Government, when they come into office, have a contract with the people to protect them. It is a duty. Article 2 of the convention in the Human Rights Act is about safeguarding the right to life, and the Government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws and taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk. It is not just a matter of high-profile cases that we might know about that occur around the world or in third-world countries. The Government and Ministers have responsibility for the population of this country, regardless of how they voted, to make sure that our laws do not put that fear into people’s hearts when they shut the door behind them in the morning, that those services we have been able to depend on, particularly in the areas of health, fire and social services, will be there if they are needed in an emergency. That does not take away people’s rights to strike, but it provides what we might refer to as a safety net when it is needed. That is why I support my noble friend.
Of course, I hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, says—I never fail to listen, as I am sure we all do, to what he says—and I am very pleased that the affirmative resolution has been written into the Bill for the secondary legislation. As a former member of the Delegated Powers Committee, other members of which are in the Chamber today, I would have found it outrageous had it not been an affirmative resolution. The Minister has quite a hard task. I hope he never has to use the nitty-gritty of the Bill, but there are those of us who are fearful when we close the door behind us, because of the activities of the essential services at the moment—I speak no detriment to them for doing it—and I hope that he will get that balance right.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords,
“The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike”.
Today, more than ever before, we must add individual labouring women to that description, but the original words come not from Keir Hardie nor even Clement Attlee, but from Winston Churchill’s 1947 Conservative Party conference speech—even after his legendary wartime leadership and what must have felt quite a bitter defeat in the subsequent general election. Contemporary Conservatives would be wise to learn from the magnanimity of their greatest leader as he built on the Disraeli tradition of protecting the right of working people to organise. Today’s Government should do this, not just for a shot at a better place in history but because it is both principled and politically shrewd.
Over 40 years earlier and long before the right to strike had been enshrined in the international human rights settlement, in which he played a significant part, Churchill observed:
“It is most important for the British working classes that they should be able if necessary to strike—although nobody likes strikes—in order to put pressure upon the employers for a greater share of the wealth of the world or for the removal of hard and onerous conditions”.
In today’s world of union-free and exploitative Amazon warehouses—one of food banks next to investment banks—his 1904 comments could not be more salient. Rights to union recognition, collective bargaining and to withdraw labour are merely the employees’ equivalent of property rights, including to engage in co-ordinated consumer or investment action against unscrupulous companies or foreign powers that exploit slave labour. How can it be regarded as conservative to attack them further?
The mechanism chosen by the drafters of this Bill is itself, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as illiberal as its intentions. For legislation dealing with minimum service levels not to prescribe what those levels are, and for it instead to leave its stated substance to the Secretary of State and secondary legislation—including amending Acts of Parliament—is yet another executive power grab from the legislature under this Government. It is also a divisive snub to devolved Administrations and crucially to working people themselves. As a number of European trade unionists have already pointed out, Ministers’ comparisons with minimum service levels elsewhere on the continent are false. Other jurisdictions provide for negotiated minimum service levels and lack the harsh supermajorities required for ballots for industrial action imposed here, during years of Conservative rule.
The Government may sidestep Parliament, and employers may impose work notices on individuals to cross picket lines contrary to their conscience. They further may slap debilitating lawsuits on trade unions who do not take so-called “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance. The clear direction of travel is of sacked workers, bankrupted unions, and flagrant violations of international human rights obligations freely to associate and to strike.
How on earth will any of this resolve current workplace disputes caused by an existential cost of living crisis and years of underinvestment in vital public services and key infrastructure by Government and shareholders alike? Surely this can only inflame disagreements that  must ultimately be resolved by reasonable negotiation. Services will not be safeguarded, let alone improved, by even more demoralised staff, more time off sick and a range of industrial protests just short of formally striking.
One begins to suspect that this Government’s tactical culture wars are no longer just being waged in the home department. They have now, it seems, spread across Whitehall and the Cabinet—divide and rule instead of unite and govern, and then blame the poorest and most vulnerable in society for the mismanagement, short-sightedness, greed and even corruption of the wealthiest and most powerful.
But incendiary actions have consequences. In the private sphere, the Government will be seen to be siding with intransigent, unscrupulous and profiteering rail companies with which passengers have little sympathy after years of rising fares and diminished service. In the public realm, the Government are abusing their power as legislator, further undermining the nurses and ambulance drivers who are as much the heroes of the pandemic as any serviceperson was during World War Two. Their concerns are as much about the state of the service as their own terms and conditions. These are highly ethical people with whom we trust our lives and those of our loved ones, and, in any event, they are prohibited by law from putting lives at risk during industrial action. Agency workers are already paid multiples of their earnings, while they resort to food banks. What are they supposed to do if employers and Ministers will not talk and will not listen?
No doubt some noble Lords on the Benches opposite are perhaps nostalgic for the days of Mrs Thatcher—as she then was—versus the miners. Here I agree with many commentators that those times were significantly different. Those urging a tough line towards current strife point to the greater numbers of union members in those days. I counter that pits were not located in every community in this country. The traditional all-male workforce was more easily demonised in the shires as consisting of ideological dinosaurs. They were not always led by the more articulate, pragmatic and sympathetic—and often women—trade union advocates of today.
Perhaps I am naive about how government consultants calculate the electoral benefits of constant divide and rule as opposed to one-nation politics. However, current polls would appear to favour my argument that facilitating negotiation rather than more controversial legislation would be a better path for anyone seeking to regain public trust. Alternatively, Ministers can continue to underestimate the sense of fairness and decency of the people they are meant to serve. They can add NHS professionals, firefighters, rail workers and no doubt countless others to the lawyers, climate change and race equality protesters, and refugees already on their ever-growing list of the unworthy and unwelcome, to be abused or ignored.

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, the Bill perfectly epitomises the sorry state this Government have reached and the escalating damage they are doing to our country. For context, I invite your Lordships to cast your minds back to the heady days of 2012.  Despite having to wrestle with a worldwide economic crash that originated in America, ours was a respected and proud country. We had just put on the conspicuously successful and joyful London Olympics, during which we had shown how we happily welcome strangers to our shores. We were admired throughout the world for our businesses, science, creative arts, diplomacy, public services and Parliament. Yes, we had problems, such as our long-term failure to tackle poor productivity, but our optimism and self-belief gave us a chance to come together to finally fix those issues.
Where are we now, 11 years later, following seven tumultuous years of Conservative-only rule? We have been hopelessly divided by a near stalemate in the Brexit referendum, a vote that was scarred by blatant dishonesty and Russian interference—which, incredibly, the Government still refuse to investigate. Some of our most successful industries and sources of soft power such as the creative arts have been hobbled by a badly botched trade agreement with the EU.
The Government’s response to Covid was characterised by early dithering, resulting in many extra deaths, and rampant PPE corruption on a scale of which rulers of a banana republic could only dream. Our friends abroad have watched our rapid decline and our Government’s ridiculous boosterism initially with irritation and incredulity, which then became hilarity, and has now reached its nadir in pity for our self-inflicted plight.
The wretched little Bill we are debating today is just the latest salvo in the relentless attack to which this Government have subjected our democracy. It started with the illegal prorogation of Parliament and has continued with frequent attempts to sideline both Houses and excessive use of regulations to make important policy decisions. With the swaggering confidence of a playground bully whose behaviour has never been checked, this Government now table another Bill which relies on Henry VIII powers for all its decisions.
This foolish attempt to suppress strikes is poisonous, unworkable and counterproductive. It comes from a Government who have reached the end of the road, have run out of ideas—if they ever had any—have expelled their most able talents and are left with the dregs and do not care how much damage they do as they head for the exit door. This is a Government who cannot or will not negotiate with striking public sector workers to settle their grievances, and instead seek to restrict their rights to express those grievances. It will not work and will in fact make matters worse by poisoning industrial relations.
The Government will say that they hope never to have to use these powers, that their mere existence will prevent strikes being called. If you have a gun and are not prepared to pull the trigger, you do not have a gun. Striking workers will not take this legislation seriously unless the Government pull the trigger—with all the bitterness that results.
As to whether it will work, the Minister is fond of reminding us that similar legislation exists in other countries, including France. SNCF, the French national railway, was on strike last week and will be striking again on 7 and 8 March. So, their version of this legislation is working very well, is it not?
Our NHS is struggling to run, with 140,000 unfilled vacancies, to a large extent caused by the Government’s decision to go for the hardest Brexit possible. How will retention of existing staff and recruitment of new staff be helped by the Government switching from clapping to sacking nurses and doctors? Is that really going to happen? I hope not.
The Government aim to attain these powers through a Bill with just six clauses. This Bill is merely the emaciated skeleton of a Bill because all the meat, all the substance, is for Ministers to decide later, however the mood takes them, after Parliament has had its small say. They cannot or will not tell us how the minimum service levels will be set relative to the abysmally low service levels the public are currently enduring, even where there is no strike.
Both sweepingly broad and disturbingly uncircumscribed, this blank-cheque style Bill is exactly the kind of insult to Parliament and parliamentary democracy that we are used to seeing from this Government. I am increasingly convinced that it is yet another product of a room somewhere in the bowels of Whitehall that has a sign on the door saying, “Something Must Be Done Department”, followed by a scrawl of graffiti saying, “Although It Will Only Make Things Worse”.
This dreadful Bill needs to crawl back into the dark space from which it emerged. It is the product of the worst Government I and many others have had the misfortune to witness in our lives; a Government already in their death throes for all to see, no doubt including those within it. The sooner this wretched Government go, the sooner ugly, unworkable and counterproductive ideas such as this Bill will stop blighting our Parliament and our country.

Lord Dobbs: My Lords, I add my welcome to my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. I hope that this afternoon’s will be the first of many fine interventions from her in this House.
I hope I would have had the courage to have been one of those early strikers. I hope I would have been a Chartist. I hope, had I been a politician, that I would have supported and fought for the Trade Union Act 1871. I am not sure why but I have always been particularly affected by the matchgirls’ strike of 1881—phossy jaw and so much unnecessary suffering.
Yet trade union law is about a balance: a balance between rights that are matched by responsibilities. That is why I was proud to play a part in supporting my old friend and former boss Norman Tebbit when, in the 1980s, the Conservative Government reformed trade union laws to bring back that balance between rights and responsibilities. There were five Employment Acts and a Trade Union Act that dealt with the closed shop, secondary picketing, members’ postal ballots and so much more.
At the time, the Labour Party screamed in outrage, but what happened when Labour eventually got back into power? Absolutely nothing. Labour’s 1997 manifesto promised that the key elements of those Conservative reforms would stay. It said, “There will be no going back”—that is a quote—and none of those terrible trade union laws were repealed. Those laws did not  stop strikes; they balanced the rights of trade unions against the rights of others, which is precisely what this Bill seeks to do.
This Bill covers a lot of different sectors. It is interesting that Labour concentrates so heavily on nurses and health workers, with barely a squeak about Mick Lynch and the RMT, but I understand why that is so. Their job is to oppose, just as our job as a House is to improve; frankly, I would be surprised if this House and the Government were not able to find some improvements, if I can put it that way. I listened closely to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as far as that is concerned.
I have some doubts and questions for my noble friend the Minister about the relevance of lumping nurses and health workers in with train drivers and border staff. There seems to be a spreading consensus in the political world, on both sides of the political divide, that our health services require fundamental reform. The NHS is not the envy of the world. Too often, it looks like something in desperate need of new thinking. That is not the fault of the nurses, so I wonder whether any rearrangement of nurses’ obligations should not wait until it can be part of that fundamental reorganisation of the NHS that we so desperately need. It is a thought; I expect that this House is going to offer plenty of other thoughts too.
The Labour Party says that we can leave it all up to the sense of responsibility of the trade unions. I suspect that I am not the only one in this House who is old enough to remember the way in which Vic Feather, Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon opposed Barbara Castle’s Industrial Relations Bill—Barbara Castle, no less. Scarcely a pawn of the wicked employers, was she? Trade union leaders insisted that Mrs Castle’s Bill was unnecessary and gave a solemn and binding commitment that they would ensure fair play. “Leave it to us”, they said. I remember how “Solomon Binding” came along in his great big hobnail boots and kicked that Labour Government to pieces.
Let us bring that up to date. The current train strike has been going on since last June, with eight months of inflicting misery on others—including other workers. Yet Labour wants to go back to Solomon Binding. Perhaps he might make a reappearance in the future but, if he does, he will have to dance much more daintily than he has ever done in the past.
Let me be careful here. It is no great secret that the Labour Party hopes soon to be back in power. Let me offer a thought. Just imagine that world of Labour back in power—I find it very difficult to do so but let us just imagine it. We are told that the Labour Government will repeal this legislation, but I have no doubt that this legislation will survive. No future Government would lay themselves open to the accusation that they are anti-patient, anti-commuter, anti-student and anti-ordinary worker. No Labour Government would risk the accusation that they sold the public interest out to any paymaster. I think that they will do a Blair and move on.
At Second Reading in the Commons, Angela Rayner said that this is
“a vindictive assault of the basic freedoms of British working people.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 66.]
Some might say that that is precisely what this train strike is—an assault on the basic freedoms of British working people to get to their places of work.
The Bill does not ban strikes. It simply protects the interests of the public and the weakest in our society, who have a right to demand that their basic public services continue, even when Mick Lynch decides that he wants yet more. Do not ordinary people have a right to their train services, their border security, their emergency ambulances, their children’s schooling and their emergency fire support? That is what the Bill is designed to ensure.
Here is another bit of historical context. The first strike in recorded history was in 1152 BC—more than 3,000 years ago, when workers at the royal necropolis of Deir el-Medina went on strike over the late payment of wages. I knew that your Lordships would want to know that. It is still the case that some strikes are necessary and honourable, and the right to strike is an essential and continuing part of our freedoms.
The Bill is not anti-strike; it is pro-worker—those workers who wish to get to work and who have wished to get to work over eight months of Mick Lynch and his ego-trip trying to deny ordinary people the facility to go out and work for their families. I notice that the Labour Party remains very quiet about Mick Lynch and his strikes.
The Bill is not designed to sack people; it is a Bill to keep the country working. The Bill is not an attack on our freedoms; it is a Bill that aims to restore that vital balance between rights and responsibilities, without which freedoms, jobs and basic rights die. That is what this Bill attempts to ensure. I wish it well.

Lord Monks: My Lords, here we go again. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has taken us through some of the industrial relations history, going back many centuries in some cases. It shows that it is a rite of passage for successive Conservative Governments, since Mrs Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, to legislate against trade unions and to minimise their scope for action. We are the old enemy, as has just been very graphically described in that last contribution. It reflects a nostalgia to replay the epic battles of the 1980s, only this time it is nurses and NHS staff, fresh from being applauded in the pandemic, who are now on the front line. It is not coal miners or printers; the world has changed since Lord Tebbit’s high-water years. As can be seen regularly from the polls, these workers who have been taking action are getting a lot of public support at the present time. That must be taken into account.
This is all against the background that we have seen in recent decades of rising inequality, the poor getting poorer and many workers working on a more insecure basis. If you are talking about balance, the other side of this House has got the balance wrong. The right way is to give workers more scope.
By the way, where is the employment Bill we were promised, which was going to give workers in the gig economy greater rights and greater freedom? That is buried somewhere, while staff have been diverted to the exercise that we are debating today.
At the moment, there are mixed messages all over the place from the Government: one minute Ministers are cooing that they want to talk to unions, while the next minute this crude club of a Bill is being swung at the unions, despite the fact that we already have some of the toughest trade union laws in the democratic world.
The Government must face up to the fact that, with inflation running at 10%, with pay in the private sector rising at around 6%, and with the public sector lagging well behind at half that, they have a very big problem in respect of their own employees. In a democracy, you cannot dam the wave of discontent, and this is a legitimate discontent that we are talking about at the moment; you have to find settlements and a way through.
Others will comment on the constitutional outrage of this skeleton Bill, with its absence of any detail about what minimum standards are needed to run, say, a railway or a hospital. The extensive claiming of Henry VIII powers would make even the old king and Thomas Cromwell blush. In his intervention in the debate in the other place, the Member for North East Somerset—Mr Rees-Mogg, no less—put it very well when he invited explicitly your Lordships’ House, our House, not to accept the Bill in its present form. He regarded it as unconstitutional, and he is right on this Bill. Of course, no one can accuse him of consistency, because he is the author of the retained EU law Bill, which will be in a Committee of this House on Thursday, which is also a skeleton Bill, giving wide powers to Ministers to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
I am not against minimum standards, particularly as far as public services are concerned, but they will work only if they command respect and are fair. In particular, they need to be agreed. Agreements exist in some key sectors already; we heard about the ambulance service, and nuclear decommissioning is another one. In other sectors, nobody has ever thought that they were necessary. If they are going to be necessary, you would assume that the Government would be thinking about how they could get support for such measures, not issuing diktats. In fact, when you look at those countries overseas that have these arrangements, you see they are part of far more union-friendly labour codes than our restrictive regime in the UK. To take just one part of the Bill—the withdrawal of unfair dismissal protection from workers who refuse to work when called in during a strike—no other democratic country has a measure of that kind.
I ask your Lordships to look at the Bill from the point of view of a union. A dispute has arisen and there is a grievance. Before it does anything about it, the union has to hold a secret postal ballot, it has to surmount the thresholds on turnout and majorities, and it has to give due notice to the employer—all of which have been introduced, as we heard in the history lesson given by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. If the union can leap those hurdles, the strike can commence. But once this Bill’s provisions have been enacted, individual members can be called into work, in effect to break the strike. That is what they will be asked to do, and if they refuse they can be fairly dismissed. That is a recipe for a whole lot of extra trouble, at a time when the emphasis should be on finding a solution  to the original dispute. The result will be an additional dispute, and a very bitter one at that. In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government stated that no individual worker would be targeted. What happened to that promise? It seems to have disappeared.
It used to be the case that Governments tried to be exemplary employers, setting an example to the private sector; Stanley Baldwin, Winston Churchill and others always made that clear. But now the public sector is in crisis, with pay falling drastically behind many other sectors, chronic staff shortages and too many services not performing acceptably—on a normal day, TransPennine, for example, would struggle to meet any decent minimum service. The Government need an initiative to tackle these real problems, instead of messing around with this tiresome Bill.
Could the Minister put the Bill to one side? Could he consider launching a consultation with the TUC and relevant unions on minimum standards to see whether agreements could be reached where they do not already exist? Let us face it: to get an agreement could require some uprating in pay. That is what some other countries have done, by the way, in their minimum standards agreements. If not, the Bill will, if enacted, inject poison into already difficult situations.
The impact assessment for the old Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill warned of more frequent disputes, as did my noble friend earlier, and more action short of strikes. Others have warned of mass sickies. This is a time for industrial relations statesmanship, not political preening and posturing. It is time the Government took a different course.

Baroness Donaghy: My Lords, whoever fixed the date of this Second Reading for Shrove Tuesday must have a real sense of humour.
Only last month, the House witnessed a remarkable debate on two reports—one from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and one from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I was privileged to sit through that debate and the overwhelming view was that the Executive were guilty of an abuse of power, which is a threat to Parliament and to democracy, including skeleton Bills and power grabs by Secretaries of State to decide on issues the details of which were unavailable, as were most impact assessments. If they were available, they were totally inadequate. All the detail would be contained in the secondary legislation, which was not available. The extent of those powers, many of them Henry VIII powers, rendered this House’s job of proper scrutiny impossible—a point that was made many times by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and by others again today.
The noble Lord, Lord True, responded to that debate on behalf of the Government and assured us that he was in listening mode. Yet here we are again with a skeleton Bill, a poor impact assessment and no idea of what will be in the secondary legislation, but massive powers to be taken by the Secretary of State to attack trade unions as institutions and to attack their members. The Executive are treating our role as scrutineers of legislation with utter contempt.
I am proud to have been a trade unionist throughout my working life. I was not a full-time official, but I was president of NALGO 33 years ago and president of the TUC 23 years ago. I recognise an attack on trade unions when I see one. The Government are trying to capture the public’s understandable anxiety about the current wave of strikes in the public services to divert attention from the fact that they are doing absolutely nothing to sort them out. It is not just about money; it is about having to witness a decline in the service of which those members are proud.
I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. We might not agree on everything, but I well remember her NALGO branch—it is now UNISON of course, as NALGO was its forerunner. It was run by dedicated trade unionists, who were and are also proud local government officers. They hate what is happening to the services that they are supposed to make work, with a 60% cut in their budget over the years. In the 12 years I have been here, the Government have made several attempts to separate trade unions from their members. “If we could only tame these crypto-Marxist full-time officers”—I cannot see my noble friend Lady O’Grady’s face at this moment, but I hope she is looking fierce—“then the trade union members would behave sensibly.” Anyone actually involved knows that it is often the other way around, with full-time officers acting as a brake on the unrealistic expectations of some members.
Who are these threats to the public’s safety? I received a phone call on Sunday from someone at Guy’s Hospital. I commented that it was a pity that she was working on a Sunday and she said they were making every effort to catch up on the backlog. She offered me an appointment for this coming Sunday. No jobsworths there: they were going out of their way to be helpful and catch up on the backlog. Even the Government-friendly newspapers do not seem to have much appetite for demonising the people on strike. I think they know a Government on their uppers when they see one.
On 11 January, I asked the Minister whether ACAS had been consulted about these proposals. I should declare that I chaired ACAS for seven years and I receive a pension from it. The Minister did not answer my question, so my noble friend Lady Blower reminded him. In reply the Minister said:
“As for consultation, the legislation was drawn up very quickly and in haste. We have not been able to do all the consultation we would like, but noble Lords will be reassured to know that for the actual implementation of the secondary regulations—which will contain most of the detail—we will of course carry out full consultations.”—[Official Report, 11/1/23; col. 1436.]
If this service-level agreement was in the 2019 manifesto, I am slightly surprised that it was “drawn up very quickly and in haste”. Perhaps something that was “drawn up very quickly and in haste” should be rewritten in its entirety or, better still, be put back in that anti- trade union filing cabinet.
I would certainly favour, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has just said, minimum service levels between the electorate and the Government. I suspect that the Government would be in breach before the ink was dry on the legislation as they continue to pursue
“private opulence and public squalor”.
That phrase was coined 65 years ago and is a good summary of the Government’s record.
I also asked the Minister last month to help me with a question I was asked by a friend who sits on a school board: how, if a headteacher decided to sack all the staff in their school, would any minimum service or safety level be fulfilled? Would the Government step in to provide the staff? The Minister’s reply was that the Government
“do not desire or wish to sack any public sector workers in any sectors. We are in the business of increasing the number of public sector workers, not sacking them.”—[Official Report, 11/1/23; col. 1435.]
If the Government are not going to force the sacking of a public sector worker, what are they going to do? How will they force them to work? Is this just to get hold of trade union reserves, set workers against unions, put fear and insecurity into individual public service workers, and attempt to provide a diversion from a failing, do-nothing Government? This Bill does nothing for good employment relations, nothing for our diminished public services, nothing for the standard of living of our public service workers, and it will not fill a single job vacancy. I am surprised that with so little time left before the next general election, the Government think they can waste precious parliamentary time on this Bill.

Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. There is only me standing in the way, so I will try to be brief.
At Second Reading in the other place, the Government said that the Bill’s purpose was
“to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 54.]
At first glance this might seem a straightforward aim. However, as noble Lords and those in the other place have already said, there is much more at stake here than initially meets the eye. I believe that the Bill in its current form creates more problems than those it perceives or seeks to solve.
There has been a terrible increase in industrial action in the past months. We all reflect on why this may be the case. There are serious and legitimate concerns held by those who decide to go on strike about their well-being, as well as the well-being of the services for which they work and that of wider society.
Our public services and those who keep them going are struggling. I am struck—reference has been made a couple of times to this—that it was not that long ago, during the pandemic, that we were lauding those who now feel abandoned. We have also heard reference made to reports of nurses left with no choice but to use food banks, and others who are leaving skilled jobs in public service roles to take up less skilled but better-paid jobs elsewhere.
I would caution against the characterisation of this argument as one of left versus right; I feel I am a bit in the crossfire here. This is about dignity of work and the common good, for the flourishing of the whole of society. For the good functioning of society, it is  essential that all workers have a legitimate and peaceful means to seek redress against pay and conditions that leave them unable to make ends meet. Surely, this applies even more to those who provide essential services in the public sector, where discussions about fair remuneration can be dismissed, often by the language of limiting government expenditure. Of course, all negotiations should be conducted in good faith by both parties seeking mutual agreement. I am struck—I am sure we are all concerned—that, at the moment, each side accuses the other of intransigence. However, without full recourse to strike action as the last resort, far from it creating a reasonable balance between those involved, the balance of power seems to be tipped too far in one direction.
I turn to a couple of concerns on the specifics of the Bill, which are shared by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester; we look forward to raising them further in other stages of the Bill. As has been observed by several noble Lords, the Bill is skeletal in its form, opening up multiple ambiguities. It would significantly broaden Secretary of State powers, which can be exercised on very short notice. The Secretary of State would be able to specify the levels of service required during strikes in public services via statutory instruments. As has been observed, the lack of definition for “levels of service” in the Bill gives the Secretary of State full reign on this in secondary legislation, seemingly with little opportunity for proper consultation.
There is also a significant and vague infringement on protections for unions and workers. Indeed, Part 1 of the Bill would add a requirement upon unions to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance by their members with a minimum service work notice and, where this is not done, enable employers to sue unions. Part 2 removes workers’ protection from unfair dismissal due to participation in a strike action contrary to a work notice. Such provisions would risk further straining an already overstretched workforce in our public services. Furthermore, as the Bill stands, it is unclear which workers could ultimately be subjected to its measures. I believe these proposals do more harm than good. I urge the Minister and His Majesty’s Government to reconsider this Bill.

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley: My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to be making my maiden speech. I start by saying a big thank you for the warm welcome I have received, especially from the staff in this place, who have been fantastic in helping newbies like myself navigate their way around.
It seems unreal that someone from a humble background such as mine is here. My parents came to London from Limerick in 1960 for a better life and better opportunities, as jobs were in short supply in Ireland. They were from fairly large families—Catholic families, before television was invented—but, despite that, they believed in public service and brought both my brother, David, and me up to help others and make a difference.
My mother was of a generation where women stood back. She was a very smart lady whose capabilities, integrity, compassion and strength shone through, as was her mother, my nana Hoban, who pretty much  raised nine children while my grandfather worked in England and sent money home weekly. Theirs was a different world to the one we live in today, but they were both of the opinion that you worked for what you got, never had what you could not afford, aspired to make a difference and helped others. These are lessons that stand the test of time.
Those two formidable, capable women were my mentors and a third was my inspiration: the great Baroness Thatcher, elected as the first woman Prime Minister just before my 18th birthday. That meant girls of my generation seeing for the first time that they were not second-class citizens and could compete in a man’s world. So, the young girl from a council estate left school and went to work in insurance, moving on to investment banking—so very helpful in instilling fiscal responsibility, as well as making me comfortable dealing with large amounts of money. This was not the career path expected for a girl educated at a convent girls’ school in south-east London in the 1970s.
Alongside my career, my sense of public service inherited from my parents played out through politics, encouraged by Tony Salter—the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft—and my noble friend Lord Moynihan. That early involvement in Lewisham politics resulted in my becoming a councillor in Bexley, then leader of the London Borough of Bexley—the career in the City being the casualty of wanting to do right by the residents of Bexley just after I became leader, as I wanted to make a difference.
We did make a difference. We regenerated estates that we were told would never be regenerated, changing the lives of those residents. We are known for our success with recycling: our biggest recycling project was our civic offices, which created regeneration and job opportunities as well as saving taxpayers’ revenue costs. We built schools, including special schools, so that our young people who needed extra support could get it locally. We opened new libraries when others were closing them. We saved the police station that Sadiq Khan wanted to close. We brought Waitrose to Sidcup and when our local general hospital was closed, we worked to turn it into a thriving health provision for local people including cancer care and soon, I hope a state-of-the-art diagnostic centre. Our lobbying should also mean one of the few banking hubs in the country coming to Welling.
Some of those campaigns obviously involved our much missed and beloved Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the right honourable James Brokenshire, who many Members in this Chamber will have held in the same high esteem that I did. We have made a difference in Bexley, and did it without lots of money. That privilege was rewarded by the residents of Bexley endorsing our leadership for the fifth consecutive time last May, four of them under my leadership. Not only did they endorse our plan to make Bexley even better but they made us the flagship Conservative borough in London. When I started as leader in 2008, people asked “Where’s Bexley?”, but now they ask, “What’s Bexley doing?”
Many in this Chamber and in the other place will think that all London boroughs are the same, but I can tell your Lordships they are not. Neither is the funding equal, so in places such as Bexley we have to make  every penny work hard. Local government can make such a difference to the lives of local people, which is why I was honoured to have my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Porter of Spalding as my sponsors. I have worked with them both over the years and know they share my passion for what local councils can achieve.
There are many other council ex-leaders in this place, including some London ex-leaders, such as my noble friend Lord True, the Leader of the House, as well as my noble friends Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Greenhalgh, and I am grateful for the guidance and support I have received from my mentor, my noble friend Lady Redfern.
I have seen many changes in my time as leader, and I like to think that being the longest-serving leader in London—a similarity I have with the late Baron Bexley, whom I understand was the longest-serving Chancellor—brought about a maturity that mattered when we were dealing with the pandemic. That really was a testing time, when we moved from getting food and medicine to vulnerable residents, to creating a network of community champions, distributing grants to local businesses as quickly and efficiently as possible, working with health colleagues to set up testing centres, and distributing vaccines—Bexley was the best-vaccinated borough in London. While that was all happening, we were thinking about what the post-pandemic world would be like, so that we could drive the change needed to protect jobs, drive our economy, address health needs, and deal with any post-pandemic issues.
I was also involved in the London-wide pandemic response, and cross-party council leaders worked shoulder to shoulder with multiple partners to show the leadership that London deserved. The value of local government was never more evident, and it shone a light on what happens, or does not, in City Hall nowadays. There must be a better way to spend taxpayers’ money in London, and they deserve better. I am a firm believer in devolution of decision-making to local councils that know their boroughs. If that were the case, boroughs would be bringing forward far better proposals to address air quality than the mayor’s fixation on doing so through taxation. How can it be right that you can pollute the air if you can afford to do so, while creating extreme anxiety for those who cannot afford to do so? But that is a matter for another day.
The Bill is about ensuring that key front-line services are delivered. While its provisions are welcome, I gently remind noble Lords of the vital services that local government provides and commissions, some of which would also benefit from the introduction of minimum standards during industrial action. I firmly believe that local government can and does make a massive difference to people’s lives—and that deserves to be recognised. It is not about just collecting bins and social care for children and older people; it can shape a place, ensure residents get the services they deserve, react to pandemics, and plan for the future.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a straight speaker—I call it as it is—and I hope that, combined with the experience I have, that will contribute in some small way to the valuable work that noble Lords all do in this place. I have a lot to learn, but, with your help, I know I can do it, and I hope I will add some value to what your Lordships already do.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, first, I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, along with probably half the Chamber. I will reflect on that magnificently crafted maiden speech from my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley—I do not think that it could have been anything else, could it? For me, she embodies the three Cs, two of which I share with her and one of which I do not. The first is Catholicism: we were both brought up in Roman Catholic households; I had only a little bit of Irish, she had a lot of Irish. That gives you a sense of public service and duty; she really exemplifies that, and it is a great C to embody.
The second is genuine conservatism. We are both children of the Thatcher years and share the belief in freedom within the rule of law, the belief in the hand up rather than the handout, and the belief in working hard and playing by the rules. Our whole lives have been shaped by the great lady—mine was as much as my noble friend’s, even though I am a man. The one C I do not share with her is the third: control. If she—Teresa—remembers, I was a council leader before her. It started with Ian Clement, but the other four victories were hers—I managed only two. She managed four successive victories; that makes five in total. She is right that we ignored Bexley—we thought it was somewhere out in Kent—but, little by little, she has established herself as a titan in local government. She did not just control Bexley, she also controlled Bromley: I remember asking her, “What about Bromley?”, and she said, “He does what I tell him”. She will be a hugely great addition to this House.
I feel that this is a tremendously uncontroversial Bill. As someone who is the son of a surgeon and who has been the first deputy mayor for policing and crime of this great capital city and a council leader, I believe that the Bill is not about pay and conditions but about service. It is about public service involving critical things where, if you do not turn up to work, people die. My father is a surgeon. He was nominated as the presidential surgeon for George Bush Sr. They flew a helicopter and landed on Charing Cross Hospital to practise. In the event of the President being shot, who was going to get him off the table? It would have been my father. What if he turned up and said, “I’m going to go on strike today” or, when someone aged 75 with a leaking aneurysm has two hours to live, the ambulance driver decides to go on strike or says, “It’s the middle of the night—I don’t think I’m going to go to work today because I’ve got to get up in the morning”? As a doctor, you take the Hippocratic oath to keep people alive, and if you are a police officer, you do not have the right to strike—the police have not had one since 1919; you take an oath to serve the public, maintain order and stop criminals.
Service is really important. There are also the fire and rescue services—I am a former Fire Minister. We do not want people to burn in buildings; we do not want Grenfell to happen again. We need firefighters who, in the event of such a tragedy, step up and turn up to work. In all conscience, you cannot have a situation where these critical services are able to strike and simply not turn up to work.
I am a loyal Back-Bencher: I support the Government 100% on absolutely everything. I would really like the Government and my noble friend the Minister not to stop with this but to consider extending this legislation to aviation ground services. Ground services ensure that passengers and cargo are ready to safely take off and land. They are critical.
I want to thank a Cross-Bencher—no, not someone party political but a former Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, who wanted me to mention this, as he is not speaking in this debate: the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. He asked that we include in new Section 234B(3) not police officers who hold the office of constable but police staff who create and provide nationally critical functions such as the call-handling services and forensic investigations. Imagine if you call 999 and they go on strike. These people also provide critical services, and we should extend the Bill to cover them as well.
It is fair to say that my memory of 2022 is not of a winter of discontent but of a year of discontent, with the problems around aviation in the summer, nurses going on strike, ambulance drivers going on strike, and the FBU balloting to go on strike. That has drawn the Bill, which is the appropriate response.
I will just pick up a couple of points in previous speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is entirely wrong to think that we should get Ministers to sort this problem out. Ministers are not employers. In the same way as with local government, for the leader suddenly to become an employer and undermine their senior officers is entirely the wrong thing to do. You do not create parallel management structures.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that we have to embody a spirit of volunteerism. These are critical services. If we do not have a minimum service level, people can die—it is a simple as that. This is entirely essential stuff.
I am not a great lawyer; in fact, I remember my time studying law as one of abject failure. Therefore, when I listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I strain my ears to try to pick up everything that he says. Basically, he was saying, “This is not the right way to do this; this is secondary legislation.” For me—I know there are some Latin scholars out there—it is finis justificat modo: the end justifies the means. We can achieve this good by doing it this way, which is why the Government are entirely right to do this.
I have spoken for only four of the eight minutes, so I can relax a bit because I have a lot more to say. I ask the Government and my noble friend the Minister to invoke the spirit of the Gipper, Ronald Reagan. Does my noble friend remember what Ronald Reagan did over 40 years ago when the air traffic controllers went on strike—all 11,359 of them? They ignored his presidential order to return to work so he fired the lot of them, and he made sure they could never work again as federal employees. I ask the Government to invoke the spirit of the Gipper, because he was entirely right. My message to the Government, as a loyal Back-Bencher, is to be bold and brave—no compromise: it will save lives.

Lord Hain: I am not quite sure how to follow that, my Lords, but I do so by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to this Chamber and our debates and thank her for a crash course in Bexleyism, which has educated me considerably.
Before being elected to Parliament in 1991, I spent 14 years as a national research officer serving postal and telecommunication workers, and I am proud to have been a trade union member for over four decades to help achieve fairness at work.
In September 2020, Chancellor Rishi Sunak was happy to be photographed on the steps of No. 11 Downing Street with two smiling figures. They were the then TUC general-secretary Frances O’Grady—now my noble friend Lady O’Grady, who spoke so powerfully earlier—and the then CBI director-general, Dame Carolyn Fairbairn. All three were marking their support for a winter economic plan that included an extension to the furlough scheme. They demonstrated and symbolised what progress can be made when unions, employers and government look for a common cause and common ground in a crisis.
Sadly, the good will that was on display from the Government that day has been missing ever since and is nowhere to be found in this minimum service levels Bill. Instead, Tory Ministers have adopted entrenched positions and inflammatory language, denying a fair deal to public service workers and seeking to provoke key workers into action that might lose them public support. Yet nurses, ambulance drivers, doctors and other health workers, firefighters, rail workers—yes, rail workers—education workers, Royal Mail workers and border officials all enjoy public backing, because they all want the same thing we do: a negotiated settlement that delivers a fair deal, a deal that begins to undo the real-terms pay cuts and the damage done to Britain’s public services by over a decade of savage Tory austerity, worsened by soaring costs of living.
The Bill seeks to discriminate against key workers by singling them out: paying them poorly, then threatening to sack them unfairly, with no compensation if they dare to go on strike or refuse to cross picket lines. It would, in effect, outlaw the right to strike, as the Taff Vale case did for five years from 1901, but it would not stop people standing up for fairness at work.
The Bill would prolong disputes, demoralise staff and frustrate the public. People forced to work against their will would quickly turn into quiet quitters, who do what they are paid for and no more. Just look at the impact on our railways when train drivers refuse to be forced to work on their normal rest days and decline to work overtime. Formal set-piece strike action would give way to informal guerrilla tactics, with unpredictable absences and unexpected gaps in coverage as demoralised staff stay home instead of struggling in to work when they feel below par or when they sense the onset of back pain. Some 17 million people in Britain suffer from a chronic health condition. The scope for quiet civil resistance to such punitive legislation is massive.
Where could the Government’s intransigence lead? Might they seek to press-gang the millions of economically inactive people of normal working age, such as the  2.5 million people aged 16 to 64 who last summer were out of the labour force due to long-term sickness? Any minute now, I expect to hear Ministers revive the language from the David Cameron days of workers versus shirkers and Liz Truss’s shameless dismissal of Britain’s workers as
“the worst idlers in the world.”
The Tories always end up attacking those they regard as the undeserving poor. This Bill is just their latest attempt at such punitive, arrogant behaviour towards essential workers they were lauding and clapping during Covid for keeping Britain going.
Ministers are trying to portray union representatives, as Margaret Thatcher did, as the “enemy within”. The truth is that workplace injustice remains rife today, and tackling it is what trade unions are for. The day- to-day experience of trade union officers is of taking the heat out of difficult situations, calming matters down, resolving disputes. They are peacemakers, not troublemakers. In practice, their key role is to help solve problems at work, not to cause them. The Government should be helping them fulfil that role, not making life difficult for everyone by their belligerent attitude.
There was a time when Tory Ministers would insist that public sector pay should be set at levels needed to recruit, retain and motivate the public sector workforce. That left ample scope for negotiation between employers and unions, and for the pay review bodies to do their job without being gagged by their sponsoring ministries or confined to quarters by the Treasury, as has so transparently been the case over current disputes.
Instead, today health staff are finding that they cannot afford to work for the NHS. Last year saw NHS workers quitting for better-paid jobs elsewhere at twice the rate they did at the start of 2020. More than 130,000 unfilled posts, due in part to NHS pay that has failed to keep up with the rising cost of living, have led to unacceptably long waiting lists and massive treatment blockages for patients. The number of workers seeking help from Trussell Trust food banks for the first time has increased by 40% in recent months, and half the NHS Trusts in England have food banks. Surely that is unacceptable.
Every day the Tories delay reaching negotiated settlements only adds to the inevitable cost for taxpayers and loses the Government more of the good will on which our public services have come to rely. The way forward has been shown by the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland: negotiate in good faith, try—you cannot always succeed—to find a compromise, show respect, and try to get everyone back to work, however difficult that proves to be after 12 years of huge Tory cuts in devolved government budgets.
This Bill will not even keep services going, as the public are told. Instead, the real motivation is to enable Tory Ministers to dog-whistle to the base instincts of their right-wing supporters, finger-pointing and scapegoating, instead of treating with respect the workers who save our lives, teach our children, deliver our parcels, organise our trains and protect our borders. It is utterly shameful, and I am delighted that my party will repeal it.

Baroness Twycross: My Lords, I declare an interest as London’s Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience and a member of the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire and Rescue Services—a body which, as the Minister will be aware, is responsible for national collective bargaining in the fire sector. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her maiden speech. Having spent many hours in meetings with her and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, during the height of the Covid pandemic as part of our cross-party approach to the pandemic in London, I am confident she will be collegiate where appropriate and make a valuable contribution to the work of this House. I share her Irish roots and, like her, I was inspired to be political by the late Baroness Thatcher, but not because I liked what she stood for.
My position on the Bill reflects that of many of the contributions to the debate from this side and other parts of the House. This is unnecessary legislation. It is an attack on key workers and undermines the fundamental right of workers to withdraw their labour and strike. The Bill will also not work in practice and has many flaws, as many noble Lords have already highlighted. It has been introduced by a Government who want to tell public sector workers, in particular, that they are duty-bound not to strike, irrespective of how they are treated and what they are paid; a Government who want to tell people they previously hailed as heroes that their so-called vocation means that they should take what they are given, rather than what they deserve; a Government who acknowledge it would have been cheaper to resolve the rail strikes but have failed to do so; and a Government who appear to believe that threats of dismissal will be more effective than a grown-up discussion.
The only way to resolve disputes with our key workers is to work with them, not against them. The only way to resolve disputes is negotiation, not legislation. One aspect of this legislation that I find most offensive is the apparent underlying belief on the part of government that trade unions use industrial action and the threat of industrial action lightly.
It is time the Government accepted that the current wave of strikes is driven by desperation and frustration on the part of key workers—our nurses, train drivers and teachers, who keep our country running—not by some sinister motive. This is not the public being inconvenienced, as the Minister stated. This is large swathes of the public exercising their right to strike across many parts of the public sector. It is entirely because of a failure of government to address this desperation through negotiation that we are seeing the current high level of industrial disputes: the right to strike is not the problem.
In the remainder of my time I would like to focus on the rights of firefighters, who, as noble Lords will be aware, are being balloted by the Fire Brigades Union on an improved pay offer from the employers, but who voted decisively and understandably to take strike action if an improved pay offer was not received. The FBU does not, despite the government rhetoric around unions, take strike action lightly. Firefighters, as one told me this morning, join the fire service to  protect the public. This is what they want to do, and what they do daily; they do not want to go on strike. There has not been a national fire strike over pay since 2003.
Fire and rescue, along with local government, is an area of the public sector in which negotiations are not held directly with government but involve national collective bargaining with employers’ representatives. The current dispute is in the context of a real-terms cut in firefighters’ pay since 2010 of 12%. Had we not had over a decade of government austerity and government-imposed pay restraint, firefighters might be paid around £4,000 more. The current dispute is in the context of the union being asked by firefighters for referrals to food banks.
I will leave others to speak about the rights of those working in other sectors, but it is just over a year since firefighters were a critical part of our national response to Covid, taking on roles that supported our NHS and ambulance services, with the support and backing of the unions. They do not deserve to have their right to strike removed, and it should not be removed.
In London we have worked hard to maintain good relationships with firefighters and their representative bodies. In addition, the Mayor of London identified additional funding to ensure firefighters could be offered a decent pay rise, albeit one that does not match the inflation caused by the Government’s current cost-of-living crisis. I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the firefighters’ ballot, but I am proud to have worked with Labour colleagues to push an improved offer to fire- fighters, rather than dismiss their pay claim as unreasonable, as the Government appear to with so many public sector workers.
I would also like to address some of the government narrative about strikes, particularly the suggestion that our trade union legislation is much more liberal than other European countries’, and which this Government are using repeatedly to support their arguments for the minimum service level legislation this Bill seeks to introduce.
First, the notion that our legislation is liberal and needs strengthening is frankly laughable, given the existing high bar set for strike action. Secondly, as has already been highlighted in this debate, workers in Europe, including firefighters, generally work in an industrial relations climate with more collective bargaining in negotiations than in the UK. In Germany, France, Italy and Spain, the right to strike is guaranteed under their constitutions.
In Italy, minimum service arrangements are set out in collective agreements between unions and employers. In the UK, fire authorities already have a legal duty to plan for business continuity to ensure the public have a minimum level of fire provision in the event of industrial action. On top of this, the FBU has already negotiated a major incident agreement with fire employers in the event of forthcoming strike action, as the union has always done. This is publicly available, so Ministers should be aware of this.
I cannot emphasise sufficiently that this legislation is unnecessary and erodes the fundamental rights of workers. As recently as when the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, was Fire Minister, the Government also appeared to be of the view that it was not necessary to  restrict firefighters’ right to strike, as that was not included in his proposals for major fire reform. Good industrial relations, dialogue with unions and negotiation would be a much more constructive way forward than unreasonable legislation and using inflammatory language in an attempt to justify it. Like others, I urge the Government to reconsider this regressive Bill, but also like others, I have very little hope that Ministers will do so.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I want to start by congratulating the noble Baroness on her maiden speech. As a girl brought up in south-west London, I rarely ventured to the wilds of south-east London, and I cannot recall visiting Bexley, so I am grateful to learn so much about it today.
In my previous career as a teacher and lecturer, I was always a trade union member and, indeed, rose to the heights of chair of my branch, but I am far from believing that trade unions are always right. However, I do believe that this is a silly, vindictive and totally counterproductive Bill. Many others here are far better qualified to talk about the basic rights involved in trade union membership, so I will concentrate on two of the details of this Bill—first, the veritable shopping list of occupations it covers, which seems to have no underlying logic or rationale.
What unites fire services, health services, education services and transport services, and what do the Government even mean by those terms? The vast majority of fire, health and education is government-funded and delivered by arm’s-length, government-run bodies. In contrast, transport services are run very largely by private sector companies within a much lighter-touch set of regulations. I am surprised by the vagueness of the terms used, because the Government have had months to tighten up their definitions since they first started threatening this Bill.
There is another fundamental difference. If your house is on fire, you need the fire brigade immediately. A patient suffering a heart attack needs to see a doctor immediately. A child of school age needs to be taught by a qualified teacher. In all those cases, the professional skills concerned cannot be substituted in anything but the most fleeting manner. But if there are no train drivers available, it is usually possible to take the bus and call on the skills of a bus driver instead. Take the car or take a taxi. If you are a long distance away, take a plane. I cannot understand the inclusion of transport on that sector list.
What is meant by education? Do the Government mean schools, covering just the years of compulsory education? If so, why not say so; or does this cover higher education as well? Here, I must declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. Teacher strikes raise issues of child safety and parental inconvenience, affecting a cohort of children less capable of directing their own learning, whereas university students are adults and, in these post-Covid days of digital learning, have alternative resources.
Transport is a cauldron of choice. The Tory manifesto promised this legislation only in relation to the railways, so why has it been broadened? Do the Government intend to include the 600-plus bus companies that  operate in Britain, or ferry services, or aviation? Far more people travel by bus than by train and would be inconvenienced by bus strikes. The three services I mentioned are actually much more irreplaceable than the railways. If the trains are on strike, go by bus instead. I can vouch for the excellent long-distance bus services I have taken recently. Or is this still really just a Bill designed to annoy Mick Lynch? Does the term “transport” also refer to freight, which is arguably much more fundamental to our economy than passenger travel?
The second issue is on the implications of minimum service level agreements. On the last rail strike day, I went to Cardiff for a funeral. It turned out to be straightforward: there were hourly trains to Bristol, with a change to a Cardiff train there. The timetable was published in advance, trains ran to time, refreshments were available, tickets were checked and announcements were accurate. That was a minimum service level agreement and it did not need government strong-arm tactics to create it. The leadership within the rail industry has recently made clear its sense of relief that the new Secretary of State is prepared to avoid the angry rhetoric and antics of his predecessor, which made negotiations so difficult.
I am also concerned about the implications of specifying, maybe even by name, those obliged to work to provide minimum levels of service. Railways are complex jigsaws: the Government talk as if all you need are the drivers but if the cleaners go on strike, all the drivers in the world will not enable you to run the railways. Once you start naming individuals—as you would have to in the case of signalling, for example—you are in a very sensitive position regarding the safety and security of the workforce.
We have a Government who are struggling to stimulate a failing post-Covid and post-Brexit economy. A persistent problem across that economy is labour shortages, which are particularly acute in higher-skilled occupations like these. Therefore, is it sensible to threaten to sack the workers you do have if they go on strike? Is it sensible to discourage new recruits by flagging this decline in employment terms and conditions? Of course it is not.
Finally, this is another example of the Government simply ignoring the impact of their legislation on devolution. The Welsh Government were not consulted prior to a government press release on 5 January, and their requests for information were met with just a restatement of publicly available information. The Secretary of State first wrote to the First Minister in Wales on 10 January, after the Bill was introduced into the other place. No effort was missed to put the devolved Administrations in their place. The Bill allows government Ministers to set minimum service levels for a range of devolved public services. The Welsh Government’s LCM recommends refusal of the devolved powers. The Bill adopts a policy position in sharp contrast to the social partnership approach used in Wales. For example, it could mean the Secretary of State for Health—who is essentially a Health Minister for England, as we all realised during the pandemic—interfering in negotiations on wages in Wales and other devolved issues. This has a clear potential to poison relationships, and it is the patients who will suffer in the end.
This is a macho Tory signal that is counterproductive. Ordinary people will not like to be demonised by the way in which the Government are treating people from these professions.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, this is a modest Bill to ensure that people in our country are given a level of protection against extreme strike action in important public services, and I strongly support it. There has been a lot of misrepresentation about the Bill, notably in the debates in the other place. The right honourable Angela Rayner was wrong to say that it is
“a vindictive assault on the basic freedoms of British working people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 66.]
The Bill does not extend the prohibition on strikes beyond the police and Armed Forces, but it is clearly the case that further prohibitions would be perfectly permissible. Prohibitions are much more extensive in other jurisdictions: public sector strikes are illegal in nearly four-fifths of states in the United States of America, and several EU states ban more strikes than we do. The Bill does not go there; it merely provides the means to set minimum service levels in just six categories of services that most people would regard as essential. There are many other services that people would regard as essential: my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, who is not in her place, mentioned local authority services in her excellent maiden speech and there are others. The Bill does not go that far.
The Bill is about a balance of rights: there is the right to strike, within the legal framework set for strikes, but this is not an absolute right. As with many other rights that are protected in our society, it needs to be balanced against the rights of others—notably, those whose lives are impacted by strikes, even though they are not a direct party to whatever dispute has caused them. The International Labour Organization allows minimum service levels to be set for both essential services and the broader category of public services of fundamental importance. The ILO hence recognises the need to balance rights.
Citizens have a right to a minimum level of transport services so that they may travel to work or for other important purposes, such as health treatment. All school- children, especially the most vulnerable, have a right to education. We all have a right to a level of healthcare and emergency services, and that goes beyond the minimalist life-and-limb cover. These are the sorts of rights that have to be weighed in the balance. Strikers may well want to maximise the impact of their strike action, but that will inevitably have an adverse impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. Citizens pay taxes which fund public services, and their rights to those services must be taken into account.
I regret the need for an Act of Parliament to govern the balance of rights, but it is absolutely clear that we need the Bill. On train strike days, sometimes 20% of train services have been available, but they were generally in the wrong place and at the wrong time for many working people. Striking ambulance workers agreed to minimum service levels, but this was done via an arcane derogation process at local level and resulted in a postcode lottery for gravely sick people. Teachers  were not obliged to notify their head teacher whether they would be at work and very many did not do so, which made it impossible to plan for a basic level of education to be provided to the children who needed it most. It is the actions of the unions and their members in the current strikes that have led directly to the need for the Bill, and the latest sabre-rattling from the junior doctors merely underlines that need.
I strongly support the Bill, but I am not uncritical of the way that the Government are seeking to get it through Parliament. Parliament should not be expected to pass laws without an understanding of the scale and scope of the impact that they will have. Some very bad habits in relation to impact assessments emerged during the Covid pandemic, largely in, though not limited to, the Department of Health and Social Care. We must not tolerate a cavalier approach to impact assessments for primary or secondary legislation. An impact assessment for the Bill was passed to the Regulatory Policy Committee earlier this month, but that was after the Bill had completed all its stages in the other place. It should have been available before the Second Reading there.
This morning, the Regulatory Policy Committee published its opinion. The impact assessment is red-rated as not fit for purpose and the cost-benefit analysis is weak. I have not been able to read the impact assessment because the hyperlink on GOV.UK was not working this morning. I have just one question for my noble friend the Minister on this: will the Government update their impact assessment to meet the criticisms of the Regulatory Policy Committee before the Bill goes into Committee?
Your Lordships’ House is at its best when it reflects what is important to the people of this country. A recent YouGov survey found that two-thirds of those expressing a view supported minimum service levels, with only one-third against. Let us approach scrutinising the Bill with that in mind.

Lord Prentis of Leeds: My Lords, I have to make two declarations of interest before I start. First, for over 20 years, until 2021, I was general secretary of UNISON, the public service union. Secondly, I currently serve as president of PSI, the recognised global body representing public service unions across our world.
Some may say that the proposals in the Bill are vindictive, malicious and retaliation at its best, and they may be right, but I have a far more simple view. In their haste to be seen to be doing something—anything—the Government have put forward a rushed Bill which is deficient to its core; a Bill which has the potential to wreck the social-partnership working that has been the bedrock of the National Health Service for almost a century; and a Bill which is described as having Henry VIII powers on supercharge.
What we have before us is a Bill which has been portrayed as merely bringing us in line with the norms of other European countries. Nothing could be further from reality. The UK already has the most draconian trade union laws in the democratic world. We are an outlier, not a norm.
Instead, what we really have before us is a skeleton Bill, and one which has had little or no scrutiny. This does matter. Just six weeks ago, I had the honour of making my maiden speech during the debate on the Delegated Powers Committee report, Democracy Denied. That report concluded:
“The way our laws are made can have a profound effect upon the lives of millions of citizens—granting rights, imposing obligations, involving enforcement measures”.
The House has before it a Bill that could do just that—a Bill which will curtail the civil liberties of workers and weaken protection from unfair dismissal, and a Bill which gives the Secretary of State unfettered power to amend, repeal or revoke. Parliamentary process is so important. It does matter. Ministers avoiding parliamentary scrutiny call into question trust and confidence in the whole institution. It does matter, because skeleton legislation could lead to government by diktat—something that noble Lords of all persuasions have set out their stall against.
I wish to focus on one of those services named in the Bill: the National Health Service. The NHS is crying out for long-term solutions on funding and workforce planning. It is dependent on the good will of its dedicated workforce, but the workforce is now demoralised and exhausted. It is a workforce that has witnessed too many of its patients dying—too many of them their colleagues and friends. It is a workforce now trying to do the impossible and cover for 140,000 job vacancies. To cap it all, it is now facing legislation to curb its rights. The Bill will do nothing for waiting times, it will not tackle chronic staff shortages or assist recruitment and retention, and nor will it tackle the current pay dispute. Instead, it will attack the very people on whose work and good will our NHS depends. It will erode the very foundation of our social partnership arrangements—arrangements that have served us well
What has happened between last November and now? Only last November we had a government memorandum praising the NHS and fire and rescue services, stating that
“important factors exist to mitigate the impacts of industrial action in those sectors”.
Now, weeks later, the very same Government disparage the life and limb cover arrangements made by ambulance workers. We are told that those very same ambulance workers
“have refused to provide a national safety net”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 55.]
It is mystifying.
In England, there is no one national ambulance service employer; there are separate ambulance trusts, and trade unions sensibly reach agreements directly with the trust employer. Those agreements reflect local circumstance, geography, demographics and local provision, from Penzance and Peckham to Preston. They deal with anticipated call volumes, the spread of job groups, rapid mechanisms to bring in staff when needed, and constant contact between management and government. Every ambulance and every worker stands ready to deal with an emergency. Now, all those long-standing, robust, jointly agreed arrangements are to be set aside in a frantic attempt to justify this Bill.
The Bill is seriously deficient in so many respects. Misleading statements have been made in an attempt to justify it. It has been rushed through Parliament with undue haste, and it gives unfettered powers to Ministers—a process long criticised by noble Lords. The Bill drives wedges. It is divisive, it is detrimental and it does nothing to resolve the serious crises which our country and our public services are going through. I really question whether the Bill is about life and limb or simply a clumsy attempt to render industrial action ineffective and maybe break a strike—an attempt which may prove to be in contravention of our international obligations as a democratic society.
The report of the RPC is damning. It states that the Bill is not fit for purpose and that the Government have not backed up their assumptions with evidence or considered the likely effects on SMEs. The Government have not assessed how the Bill could make strikes worse; they make assumptions without proper evidence. It could not be any worse. Perhaps it is time for the Government to reconsider their position on the Bill.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I have two points to make about this disturbing Bill. The first is as a lifetime member of the First Division Association. We did not often go on strike, not being at the sharp end of working conditions, and the Government were generally well-disposed to the negotiations of our excellent general secretary, my noble friend Lady Symons. However, members of a civil service union will now strike. That signifies serious malfunctioning in their working lives, as my noble friends, who have a range of direct experience of this over many sectors, have elaborated. For the public services to pay the price of the Truss Government’s miscalculation and subsequent inflation, on top of the long-standing wage squeeze, is manifestly unjust. No such constraint is applied to the private sector.
I echo the point powerfully made by my noble friend Lady O’Grady that the defence of unfair dismissal is also quite unjustly curtailed. If I understand paragraph 8 of the Schedule correctly, it looks as if employees can be sacked if they are not covered by a work notice or if their involvement in a strike is considered not to be compliant with one. Will the Minister please clarify this? I remember from my days as a member of employment tribunals that it was already difficult to prove unfair dismissal in quite a few instances.
Secondly, what I find alarming about the Bill is its whole premise that the Executive can dispense with our structure of democracy. My noble friend Lady Donaghy, many other noble Lords on all sides and two highly authoritative committee reports have focused on this, so I will very briefly add my voice.
In principle, Governments have manifestos; they are voted in with a majority and they have a mandate. But they do not thereby have a right to deal Parliament out of the process of implementing that mandate. The Bill erodes the role of the legislature by putting crucial detail into secondary legislation, which gets scant scrutiny and no scope for amendment. That weakens the essential arm of democracy—it is Parliament which decides what the law shall be, in our rule of law. In our system, laws are not intended to be made through  skeleton Bills, wide delegated powers or untrammelled Executive fiat, even over laws not actually made yet, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out. The Bill abounds in just such provisions.
The instances of Clause 3 and Clause 2 in the Schedule mean that neither Parliament nor the public will be able fully to grasp what the law will actually mean. What, for instance, is a minimum level of service? How much of the education sector is covered? School caretakers? Ofsted? In effect, if all these clauses stand, Parliament will have been stripped of the capacity fully to scrutinise how people will in fact be affected by the law. The result is that Parliament would lose the capacity to reflect the interests of the electorate properly. It is not surprising that impact assessments have been slow in coming, because there is so little concrete information for the analysts to work on.
We did not subscribe to a rule of law made by the Executive. That carries the elective dictatorship—already a problem, as noted by a distinguished Conservative Lord Chancellor—a step too far. It fundamentally undermines the accountability of the Government to Parliament.
Finally, our Parliament has weathered many blows over the centuries of its evolution. This is one which needs to be comprehensively dealt with. This Bill is not the right way to use law and it is very far from the right way to tackle workplace protest against intolerable conditions. To remove Parliament from the process of law-making is a dangerous assault on our democracy. “Taking back control” rings hollow indeed.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I recently asked on Twitter: “What do you call a corrupt, far-right Government that bans strikes, bans protests that are too noisy, suppresses the right to vote, gives police spies legal immunity, takes the power to make or reject laws away from Parliament and hands it to Ministers?” I had quite a few replies, most said “fascism”, which was fair enough, but there was one response that said “scared”. This is a Government of the rich who are making suitcases full of money while avoiding paying their taxes and I think they are scared. No one but a terrified Government would keep bringing these terrible laws to your Lordships’ House.
The Government are scared that the people on PAYE suffering from inflation, high interest rates and 13 years of Tory austerity are going to demand their money back—the money that was stolen with the PPE fast track and numerous other government scams that have put money in the pockets of their friends while fleecing the taxpayer.
Many of those on strike in the last few months have not had a proper pay rise for the last decade. Instead of earning respect for years of being underpaid for the work they do and carry on doing, they are lectured on the need for further restraint by the richest Prime Minister in this country’s history. Clapping does not pay the bills. We heard that after Covid and it is still true.
Instead of meetings and compromise, the workers are being hit with draconian laws. Ministers are being given huge powers that could see them ban strikes  across six public services, potentially involving millions of workers. These are not minimal powers or targeted powers; they are the powers of a dictatorship, which can be interpreted by Ministers as widely as they choose.
There is no recognition, as we have heard, of the “life and limb” provisions that are already in place during strike action, which exempt certain categories of staff from strikes where there may otherwise be a direct danger to people. The Government do not recognise existing agreements because they, once again, wish to invent a problem that does not exist, in order to justify a right-wing policy that suppresses opposition. They have done it with voter ID and the clampdown on the right to protest. Of course, the Johnson Government ended a ban on employment agencies supplying workers to temporarily replace striking workers. That ban had been in force since 1976, but the Tories overturned it.
What happens when teachers and nurses do not get paid enough? We get the situation we have today. People give up on public service and move to the private sector instead. The number of children packed into school classrooms goes up and the results go down. The number of NHS staff vacancies gets longer and so do the waiting times. Those who can pay, go private. Money will buy smaller class sizes in private schools, just as money will buy a shortcut to healthcare. That is ultimately why many in this Government do not want to give a pay rise that matches inflation. Austerity is a political choice. If we taxed the rich, we could pay the deserving. The truth is that many in this Government want public services in a permanent state of collapse because it matches their privatisation agenda. These anti-strike laws are an attempt to stop public servants from protecting our public services.
I will be brief, because a lot of people have said a lot of incredibly valuable things—mostly on this side of the Chamber, obviously. I have two final things to say. First, this thing about minimum service levels—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked about this—what does it mean? I wonder what it means, because this Government have not managed to hit a target ever since they were elected, so I cannot think how they are going to manage minimum service levels. Secondly, on the Minister’s opening—a fine opening, Minister—the public expect essential services to be there when they need them. Why do the Government not get round the table and negotiate? Why are they behaving like complete and utter oafs? I really hope that we can throw out this Bill and I am thrilled that Labour will repeal it as soon as it gets into power—that will not be too long now.

Earl of Leicester: My Lords, I had hoped to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but unfortunately his name was scratched from the list.
Why are the Government introducing this Bill? First, and most obviously, it was in my party’s 2019 election manifesto. Secondly, it is to ensure minimum service levels in key public sector areas of employment, to try to ensure that any clear danger to human life is averted, as far as it can be, by ensuring a basic service during strike action. Thirdly, they have been forced into this action now by the sheer level of strikes that  occurred last year and continue to be planned for this year, which are adversely affecting the national economy and many people throughout the country, including working parents.
As my noble friend the Minister stated in his opening remarks, in December alone, 843,000 working days were lost due to labour disputes, the highest since November 2011. By comparison, the monthly average in 2019 was only 19,500 days. The Centre for Economics and Business Research forecast the direct cost of all these strikes and the indirect cost of worker absences due to rail strikes to be at least £1.7 billion over the eight-month period to January, or 0.1% of expected GDP over this period.
Cebr also states that unresolved industrial disputes are having an adverse impact on growth at a time when many forecasters expect—and in some cases, it would seem, want—the economy to be in recession. There is a clear and urgent need for this legislation. Recent strikes have demonstrated the disproportionate impact strikes can have on the public and have cost the economy at least £6 billion.
It is not only the effect of teachers going on strike without being required to inform the headteacher of whether they would be striking so that the head can plan for the care of the children coming into school, but the knock-on effect for two-parent working couples, as one has to elect to stay, often at a moment’s notice, to look after their children. The place of work that parent was due to be at then has its own employment issues and challenges to deal with. As for single-parent families, I need say no more.
On the face of it, some public sector pay is low. For example, basic pay for a newly qualified nurse would be £27,000 a year. With overtime, unsocial hours and London weighting, this could increase to £31,000, but the Government Actuary’s Department states that their total package amounts to £50,000. About a third of this is in their defined salary pension scheme, with the rest in other benefits. Given the choice, I am sure many public sector workers might like to take an enhanced salary with a commensurate reduction in their pension—but they are not being given that choice.
A close member of my family is a very committed nurse, having been in the NHS all her life. She has voted for strike action for the first time. When I asked her what her salary was, she was able to tell me. That was not the case when I asked what her total package or her pension was worth, or what percentage contribution her employer paid. For every £1 a nurse puts into his or her pension, a further £3 to £6 in benefits accrues from the employer, with a total pension contribution of 20.6%. Furthermore, their pension scheme allows them to activate it from the age of 55, allowing for a phased retirement.
I must make it clear that I do not begrudge nurses these benefits, because we all know that they work under great pressure, often in appalling conditions and, sadly, in some cases, with little leadership shown by their bosses. It is true that since 2010 they have seen their actual pay—that £27,000 or £31,000—fall in real terms. But if the cake was cut in a different way, as I have alluded to earlier, I am sure that many public sector workers would not be striking for these unattainable pay awards, which Labour itself has said are not  sustainable. Increasing all public sector pay by 11% would cost £28 billion, equivalent to an extra £1,000 for every UK household, because of all the on-costs of the pension packages. The average wage for a teacher in 2021 was £42,000, but they were also benefiting from an employer pension contribution of nearly 24%. In my county, Norfolk County Council’s employer contribution was a staggering 37%.
While in recent years—it was not always thus—some private sector pay has been outstripping public sector pay, government regulations stipulate that a private sector employee must pay a 5% contribution to a defined contribution scheme, not a public sector defined salary pension scheme, and their employer must pay the balance of 3% to take it up to 8%. Some employers share the burden equally, with a 4% contribution. So, you can see a huge disparity in pension benefits that rarely gets aired in public debate. Any large pay awards north of the independent NHS Pay Review Body recommendations will, of course, make these already generous pensions even more unaffordable, as well as making the total package very attractive. Indeed, pension contributions being paid in by today’s workers and their employers are being paid straight out to already retired public sector workers.
I cannot see my arguments turning government policy around; we are where we are. Hence, I lend my support to the Government and to the Bill. In these circumstances, when so many days of work are being lost, with crises such as the Ukrainian war and the massive mountain of debt that has been built up by the country’s handling of Covid, we really must insist on minimum service levels being maintained and legislated for. That is why I support the Bill.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, although I disagree with him. I begin by congratulating the two maiden speakers, in a way, in this debate: the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and, if I can put it this way, my noble friend Lady O’Grady, who I believe was speaking from the Front Bench for the first time—and what a very good speech it was.
This Government are beginning to lose their way, and the Bill before us today proves it. In the face of today’s prolonged industrial action by many in our society, including the nurses, ambulance drivers and—by a margin of 98%, I read today—junior doctors, who not so long ago we stood on our doorsteps to cheer during the darkest days of the Covid pandemic, this Government have now been driven to introduce a Bill that will not solve any of the underlying problems.
No one is denying the strike action that is taking place or the number of days lost; the ONS tells us that it is the greatest number since 1990. However, the Government should use their existing powers to allow negotiations between employers and trade unions to succeed and create the conditions in which they can succeed, not bring in a Bill that takes up valuable parliamentary time and, in my view, offers no prospect that its passage would make any contribution to solving the problems caused, because significant sections of the public sector workforce in the UK have become worse off in recent years. That is a fact—that is what  we call the cost of living crisis and why the Government themselves have recognised the need to take action and help with energy bills. The Government know that working people have become worse off. You can hardly blame those who have been driven to take strike action when many of them would have preferred not to.
The real arguments to be made in the current situation are about unfairness—of all kinds—and not about inventing a new law to attack both the rights of trade unions and the workplace rights of individuals. This is a good point at which to put on the record that I myself, like many Members on this side of the House and no doubt in various places around the Chamber as well, am a member of a trade union. I suppose I should also say, in the interests of transparency, that my son is a teacher whom I last met when he was on strike, walking outside this building.
I am no expert on the various public sector pay bodies. Fortunately, we now have Members in the House of Lords with the most enormous expertise from the trade union world, many of whom we have heard from today or will hear from later. This is a debate and not a history lesson—although if the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was in his place, I would say that I think the matchgirls’ strike was in 1888, not 1881—but the House knows of the struggles of the last 200 years for the establishment of trade unions and rights at work. Just because these rights have been hard won does not mean that they do not always need to be defended—because they do, and they certainly do now.
I want to give an example—I ask your Lordships to forgive me; coming late in the order, I find myself thinking that most people have made most of the points I want to make—of the individual right against unfair dismissal. As I understand it—and I am grateful to the Library for its briefing—trade unions are protected from liability for such acts by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provided that the union complies with all other legal requirements such as those dealing with strike ballots and giving proper notice. This Bill would remove this protected status from trade unions for any strike they induced people to take part in where they failed to “take reasonable steps” to ensure that all workers identified and requested to work by a work notice complied with that notice. Moreover, the Bill would remove this protection
“for any employee who takes part in a strike contrary to a valid work notice. Any such employee will not be automatically regarded as unfairly dismissed under … the Employment Rights Act 1996 if the reason … for the dismissal is because they took part in the strike.”
In other words, the individual rights of workers are at stake in the Bill, as well as those of trade unions as a whole.
There are two other points I want to make. First, as others have said, this is yet another example of a skeleton Bill. At some point, somewhere, whether in this House or another place, someone is going to have to say that enough is enough, because otherwise the Executive will fatally undermine the legislature. In my hand I have a single sheet of paper, and that is the entire content of the Bill right there—others have made this point very well.
Noble Lords may remember we had a debate in the Chamber about a year ago, triggered by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, on skeleton Bills. The House would be wise to remember what was said then. We have grown all too accustomed to skeleton Bills but that does not mean that we should be. Laws affect our lives and rights; they should not be made by bypassing the very institutions which are supposed to be a check on power. At the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, gave her own explanation as to why she thought they were used. She said, in summary, that when you are in government, you are so anxious to get stuff done that if a Minister is told they can do it by way of statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation, of course that is going to be attractive to them. Very few people would react otherwise. Who would not be relieved to think that you could do it that way? I daresay there are former Ministers in the Chamber, on all sides of the House, who understand these sentiments.
In fairness, I also want to refer to the words of then Cabinet Office Minister—who is now the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House—in defence of the skeleton Bill approach. He said, over a year ago, that rigorous processes are in place within government to justify the use of proposed secondary legislation contained in Bills and that
“This process ensures that there is a steady flow of statutory instruments being laid before Parliament and therefore, I hope, facilitates better scrutiny.”—[Official Report, 6/1/2022; col. 791.]
It may be that the flow of statutory instruments has been steady but that does not mean to say that the amount of them has not been too great.
If I may, I will quote a Member of this House who is staring at me at this moment. When he was Lord Chief Justice, as I understand it, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that if Whitehall gets into the habit of using Henry VIII clauses
“we are … in … danger of becoming indifferent to them”.
In summary, if the Government persist—as they do in this legislation—in using such Bills to push all the detail to later, ultimately Parliament will not really know what it is that we are being asked to approve, and that is dangerous for democracy. In view of the time, I will leave it there, but this is an area for scrutiny in Committee, if nothing else.

Lord Balfe: My Lords, I first draw attention to my interests as listed in the register.
This is an unnecessary Bill. As Conservative Home, the online daily Conservative newsletter, said last Sunday, it will achieve nothing and should be dropped. I have never before in this Chamber quoted Jacob Rees-Mogg, but he said in reference to this Bill in the Commons that
“skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses are bad parliamentary and constitutional practice.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; col. 87.]
I ask my own side to reflect that, in a democracy, power changes, and to further reflect whether we would be happy if a Labour Government made extensive use of these fundamentally undemocratic instruments. I think we would not be. I think we would be getting up all the time and protesting about it.
To come back to the Bill, I remind noble Lords that the ILO general secretary and the United States Labor Secretary both deny backing it. They were quoted as being vaguely in favour. They are not—they are both against it. The TUC and the CBI regard it, to put it mildly, as unnecessary and likely to interfere with good industrial relations, not to build them.
I come now to my area. Within the aviation sector the Bill has been greeted with dismay. Noble Lords may remember that I am the honorary president of BALPA, the pilots’ union. The impact assessment for the transport strikes Bill, which was introduced as the initial legislation, said at paragraph 100 that the proposals could lead to greater use of action short of strike. Paragraph 101 says that the proposals could increase the frequency of disputes, meaning
“an increased number of strikes could ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term.”
Paragraph 103 says that it could increase operational costs for employers, with a particularly onerous burden on small operators. Finally, paragraph 106 says that it could have a
“negative impact on industrial relations, which could have detrimental impacts for all parties.”
My colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out the wide variety of what is meant by transport. What do we actually mean? We have aircraft, we have the Eurostar, we have trains, we have buses and we have school buses. There is no such thing as “transport” and this Bill is far too widely drawn. My contention is that aviation should be excluded altogether; by definition, no air service is ever guaranteed, as the captain of the aircraft must always be satisfied it will be concluded safely or otherwise they do not take off. This is a fundamental principle of aviation.
Are we saying that the Secretary of State, at least a week before a flight in question takes off, is going to assume the authority of the captain of the day and insist a flight is operated? Will they do so despite, first, the weather; secondly, the technical state of the aircraft; thirdly, without knowledge of whether sufficient crew have reported or will report for duty; and, finally, despite all the other things a pilot must consider? It has always been accepted that a pilot can personally say, “I am sorry, I just feel ill. I can’t take off”. That is an excuse. You do not send £300 million-worth of equipment and 300 passengers into the sky at the whim of a Minister. This is a highly technical operation, and, frankly, it has just not been thought through.
When faced with industrial action, airlines often decide on the day not to let aircraft take off because it puts all the aircraft in the wrong places, and trying to break a strike makes for a toxic environment, and an aircraft company does not want that.
Finally on this topic—and my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh mentioned it—we have been approached by Menzies, sellers of jelly babies, asking whether we could
“Probe the government as to whether they could include aviation ground services under the legislation.”
Is the Minister now going to get a list of which sweets can be sold by Menzies, present it with the list and say, “You must find someone to sell them”? What is next? Will Pret a Manger be covered? Will it have to produce the sandwiches?
I suggest to the Minister that it is time to go back to the drawing board. As we all know, it is an offence in English law to waste police time. This Bill is wasting Peers’ time. HMG are going to lose a number of votes on this and they are going to deserve it. When I first came to this House, the then Conservative Chief Whip told me that the difference between the Lords and the Commons was that in the Commons you won votes by numbers whereas in the Lords to win votes you had to win arguments. The fate of this Bill is going to prove her right.
We really are in desperate straits when we come up with a Bill such as this, which, frankly, is not thought through. It is not actually particularly a Conservative measure; it is more a panic measure. People are not pleading for this, and if the Government try to implement it they will soon find that public opinion has drifted away from them. This is a Bill which will never be implemented. I suggest that I am going to put down an amendment that the commencement date be after the next general election, so that we can put Labour on the spot to not implement it at all.

Baroness Blower: My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, whom I have known for many years in various capacities. I believe that the Front Bench opposite would do well to listen to both his intricate technical knowledge and his general principles in relation to the Bill.
As many noble Lords have already said, this proposed legislation is anti-democratic, draconian, counter- productive and unnecessary. I shall not speak to each of those elements of the Bill but there is ample evidence in the briefing from the TUC for all of them. I do, however, wish to say a few words about the draconian nature of the proposals. They would be unacceptable at any time but, in the context of the longest pay squeeze for decades, in the middle of a cost of living crisis and with the failure to recruit enough workers to provide our vital public services, they are both draconian and ill conceived.
As my noble friend Lord Monks said, in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government pledged to ensure
“that sanctions are not directed at individual workers”.
However, what we see in this skeleton Bill—I will not go there; everyone has discussed it already—is that, if a person specified in a work notice takes strike action, work notice notwithstanding, they will lose their protection from automatic unfair dismissal. This is not only unacceptable for the individual concerned; it also begs the question as to whether the strike might be deemed unlawful. The Library briefing suggests that the whole strike will be deemed illegal and the protection of all employees against automatic unfair dismissal would thereby be removed, meaning that all employees could therefore be sacked—a point made by my noble friend Lady O’Grady. Can the Minister say why the Government have changed their position from that stated in the 2019 Queen’s Speech?
Given the Government’s abject failure to recruit to the thousands of vacancies in health and education, what assessment have they made of the impact of these proposals on recruitment and retention in those  aspects of the public sector? I remind the Minister that the Government missed their own targets for the recruitment of secondary school teachers by 41%; that 13% of the teachers who qualified in 2019 have already left the profession; and that one in eight maths lessons—our Prime Minister is a great fan of them—is being taught by a teacher who is not qualified in the subject. That is not the level of service that our young people should expect.
These are the issues to which this Government should turn their attention, rather than seeking to place further restrictions on the right of workers to strike in pursuit of legitimate demands. The proposals in the Bill, such as they are, are simply not compatible with international law. In saying that other jurisdictions have minimum service levels, the Government are completely silent on the different legislative frameworks that obtain. Sectoral collective bargaining is an approach that obtains in many European countries; we do not see it here in the UK.
Those who are engaged with the work of the International Labour Organization know that it has already raised concerns about existing UK labour law, which the Government have failed to address. I am pleased to quote Tonia Novitz, a professor of labour law at the University of Bristol:
“Far from bringing the UK into line with the standards and practices of other European states … the proposed minimum service legislation constitutes a further departure from established norms and treaty obligations.”
I am sure that the Minister disagrees. Can he say how the Government have addressed the prior outstanding recommendations from the ILO on the right to strike in the UK?
The TUC briefing makes it clear that local arrangements are put in place during industrial action. It is therefore unnecessary to grant such sweeping powers to a Secretary of State to determine minimum service levels. Let us consider the fire and rescue services, as my noble friend Lady Twycross did; bear in mind that the firefighter establishment has suffered a 20% cut since 2010. Since 2004, Ministers have told the public that there is no need for national standards, and that emergency response is a local matter so is nothing to do with them, yet free rein is now to be given to a Secretary of State to make determinations. As a union that takes public safety very seriously, the FBU signed a major incident agreement—noble Lords have heard about this already—with fire employees through the national joint council, covering the whole of the UK, on 23 December last year; some of your Lordships were probably on holiday by then.
As to earlier disputes, the FBU co-operated to deliver the level of cover sought by the employers. In previous periods of strike action, Ministers and chief fire officers have assured the public that communities are safe and measures are in place. Unless that was untrue and the public were misled, there can be no justification for replacing those agreed arrangements and that system with a draconian imposition. Good industrial relations and the avoidance of industrial action are possible through collective bargaining and what the FBU calls “cordial social dialogue”. Draconian diktats are counterproductive.
Perhaps the Minister could comment on the Regulatory Policy Committee’s report—it was referenced by my noble friend Lady O’Grady—which states that the impact assessment
“has not clearly established a counterfactual supported by evidence, outlining what is expected to occur in the absence of legislation being introduced. The Department describes, within the policy background section that voluntary action already occurs, yet later in the IA … the Department assumes a baseline service level of provision of zero. This is a conservative position to take, given that voluntary provision of service in sectors is uncertain.”
It would seem to follow, then, that this proposed legislation is indeed unnecessary and draconian. Its being introduced before any of the relevant consultation with sectors has been completed is simply not acceptable.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I will try not to repeat and cite every speaker with whom I have agreed but I congratulate the previous two speakers: my BALPA colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who sits on the Conservative Benches these days but nevertheless understands that industrial relations cannot be conducted through draconian government decrees, as the Henry VIII powers in this Bill envisage; and my noble friend Lady Blower, who explained the difficulties with the Bill. I speak as the son of a former branch secretary of the NUT.
In a debate a few months ago, I asked the Minister whether the Government believe in the right to strike. He rather sheepishly proclaimed that they do. I think he should have added in the small print, “As long as they’re not effective”. In other words, the Government have the right to have draconian interventions—often at the last minute, as the powers in this skeletal Bill would allow—and lay down what service will be delivered and which workers will work. That is a recipe for disaster.
I was going to congratulate the Minister on two things: first, the shortness of this Bill, although others have pointed to the disadvantages of that; and, secondly, his sudden conversion to all things European in citing his apparent understanding of what goes on in Germany, Spain and elsewhere. I hope that he shows the same enthusiasm when we return to the retained European legislation Bill later in the week.
The reality is that the Bill exists because, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—I nearly called him “my noble friend”—said, this is a panic measure. We are in a period with a lot of strikes happening, for different reasons but at the same time. They appear to be cumulative and the Government are panicking. They want to be seen to be doing something, so they have come up with this Bill, which originated as part of a more balanced Bill of employment rights—that seems to have disappeared—then as part of a transport Bill, from which this provision has been greatly expanded. This is not the way to make legislation, or how the House of Lords should allow legislation to be made. A large part of the Bill should be rejected by this House, if not the whole of it.
I should have said that in addition to my declared interests, I am a veteran of the previous so-called winter of discontent. I was one of those crypto-Marxist officials with one of the unions involved at the time. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who is no  longer in his place, on the history of that and the subsequent period. My recollection is somewhat different. Yes, the unions made a lot of mistakes in that period. For example, we did not include gravediggers in the areas which were to be immune from strike action. That lost us a lot of public support. However, by and large there was no threat to life or limb.
I see that my noble friend Lord Donoughue, who has experience from the other side, is no longer here but I say to your Lordships that the Callaghan Government stopped talking. I recollect, two or three days before Christmas, going with a bit of paper that was drawn up by myself and my friend Lord Gladwin, a future Member of this House, to give to the then Government. It set out possible terms which had been agreed with the general secretaries of the other unions concerned. That was rejected by the Callaghan Government. A month later, the strikes began. We obeyed notice of strikes even then, though it was not at that time compulsory in law. A month or so later, the Government had to settle with the unions on almost identical terms to those that we had presented two months earlier.
When Margaret Thatcher’s Tory Government took over, she learned some of those lessons. She is wrongly depicted in some ways as the equivalent of Ronald Reagan, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said. She did not negotiate herself, of course, but she did allow her officials to negotiate. There was continued industrial unrest in the early years of the Thatcher regime but she kept the door open. Agreements were reached, sometimes after strikes. I recall that she even agreed after the water strike that there would be compulsory arbitration through ACAS and that the Government would agree to its terms. We have none of that in this Bill—there is no ACAS involvement, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy said. There are better ways of operating. There are better ways of conducting industrial relations than threatening long-standing arrangements between employers and unions or imposing new ones when a strike is threatened.
I do not like to compare the Minister with his late Majesty Richard III, but at the beginning of the play that King says,
“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer”.
It did not work out too well for him, and I am afraid that this Bill will not work out too well for the Minister either. There is an alternative and he should learn from history. The alternative is to sit down now and negotiate. For as long as the Government refuse to do that, we will have a winter of discontent.

Lord Patten: My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, particularly in a debate such as this, where he has such a long and detailed recall of history over many decades. I listened to him with respect; it is genuine respect rather than just saying that, even though I do not agree with him on a number of points. He used “repetition” in his introductory remarks, and I address the first of the four remarks that I wish to make to that.
First, purely by chance, I came across something which His Holiness the Pope said the other day. He was telling his priests not to bang on for too long, to  limit what they say in their homilies—that is RC speak for sermons in the established Church—and generally to get on with it. I think that six minutes, which is what His Holiness said, is quite a long time. We are luxuriating in eight minutes tonight but repetitive arguments will dominate all the proceedings of this Bill, as they dominated all the proceedings of the public order legislation. There is nothing wrong with saying it again and again in the hope that it sinks in, but we must recognise that in the end, we must act.
I applaud what my honourable and right honourable friends are doing in this Bill. We have seen the same argument used again and again, over protests and demonstrations, before debates on the Public Order Bill came to their end. We are going to get the same things again about the right to strike in this debate. There will be more than a spot of déjà vu in this Chamber over the next few weeks and months because we are all struggling—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I, and other noble Lords—to find a balance between what it is right to strike about and the needs for individual and publicly recognised, or sought after, levels of safety and protection. Getting that balance right is fiendishly difficult. We would be foolish to say that this or that is a solution. I would always keep lives and livelihoods first in mind, in a world where self-restraint is steadily being screened out, which concerns me a lot.
Secondly, does my noble friend the Minister think the current arrangements that ban certain occupations—essentially the Armed Forces, the police and some prison officers—from striking are adequate today, since they were first thought of in the 1960s? There have been so many challenges since, particularly the growth of global terrorism, which we did not know about 30 or 40 years ago, and the huge back and forth in the flowing global movement of people seeking safety. Why should they not seek a better life as well, in a time of easier if sometimes very dangerous travel that we all recognise? The situation is dramatically different from what it was in the 1960s.
It is not easy to be a prison officer and I thank them for what they do, but the time may be coming when no prison officers should strike at all. The same goes for the challenging and sometimes dangerous work done for us all by our border forces, not only at sea but at land borders such as ports and airports, screening out terrorists. There is a strong case for them not being able to strike either. I do not want to alarm the business managers on my side of the House—I would hate to do so—so I promise and pledge that I will not introduce egregious amendments during the passage of this Bill, which will be long and drawn-out enough. However, I hope that in return I get a serious answer from the Minister about these issues, which need to be discussed as time goes on.
Thirdly, the areas of public service covered by the Bill vary in their substance. I do not say, diminishingly, that one is more important than another, but surely there is a qualitative difference between the never clearly-defined NHS “life and limb” cover, which I have never seen a satisfactory definition of, and education. Of course, education is essential, but in a different way. Obviously, that is important to students for their future happiness, prospects and way of life. I noticed  that the phrase “industrial action” came from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I think. We need to dump that expression because it does not cover adequately the huge range of things that we looked at in the Public Order Bill and are now looking at in this Bill. Also, “essential” needs to be defined.
It is rather poignant, but some decades back the Association of University Teachers—that long-buried union—demonstrated about some unclear provisions that they were worried about in their pensions. Believe it or not, outside Carriage Gates, there was a capped and gowned figure holding up a placard containing the persuasive legend, “Rectify the anomaly now”. If that is the best that could be done in advancing arguments, I do not think it was very persuasive—and it certainly was not very chantable by those demonstrators.
Fourthly and lastly, we cannot any longer fantasise that, as a last resort, our Armed Forces can always step in and cover all exigencies. We know that, in the 1960s, there were more than half a million people in the Armed Services—about 250,000 in the Army. On 15 December 2022, those numbers were down to about 145,000, of whom some 79,000 were in the Army. These good men and women have other, more pressing, tasks in an increasingly warlike and geographically challenged world to do on our behalf than direct the traffic.
I note that I have gone beyond the time laid down by His Holiness the Pope, but just short of the time set down by the business managers.

Security Threat to UK-based Journalists
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 20 February.
“I want to update the House on steps that the Home Secretary and I have been taking to address the concerning activities of the Iranian regime and its operatives in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom is committed to defending our freedoms—values that define us and make us who we are—and none is more fundamental than freedom of the press. The Iranian regime’s violent oppression of its own citizens and repeated violations of human rights have shown us who the Supreme Leader and his enforcers really are. It has murdered its own people and made hostages of others, and the protests that began in September 2022 show that it does not have the support of the Iranian people.
In recent months, the Iranian regime has publicly called for the capture or killing of those holding it to account. That includes very real and specific threats towards UK-based journalists working for Iran International, a prominent Persian-language news channel, and their families. The Home Secretary and I absolutely condemn this outrageous violation of our sovereignty and the attempted violation of the human rights of those journalists. In response, we have put in place an extremely robust range of security measures, including armed policing. However, because of the severity of the threat and the particularities of the site, Counter Terrorism Policing has advised Iran International to move to a more secure location in the United Kingdom.  Until its studio is ready, it has chosen to continue its broadcasting from existing studios in the United States—I assure the House that this measure will be temporary. Until then, I have asked officials to help find a temporary location for Iran International’s UK operations, and we will make sure that its permanent new studio in the United Kingdom is secure. I spoke to Counter Terrorism Policing this morning to confirm that.
Let me be clear: freedom of the press is at the heart of our freedoms. Tehran’s efforts to silence Iran International are a direct attack on our freedoms, and an attempt to undermine our sovereignty. They will fail. Democracy is as much about journalists and civic activists as it is about politicians. The media must be free to work without fear, which is why this Government have already set up the Defending Democracy Taskforce, and why we will be taking further action in response to these threats. I am not alone in saying this: earlier this afternoon, I spoke to my counterparts in France, Germany and the United States. They all agreed, and spoke of incidents that have targeted individuals in their own countries. When I spoke to Iran International over the weekend, it praised our police; it is right to do so, because only last week, the vigilance of our officers resulted in an individual being charged with a terrorism offence after being arrested near the broadcaster’s office.
None the less, this is clearly an appalling situation. The Government, police, agencies and our allies are working together to ensure that Iran International’s operations will resume, and these threats will not silence us, nor them. I know that this House will wish to express its support for that principle too.
As of last week, we had responded to 15 credible threats to kill or kidnap British or UK-based individuals by the Iranian regime since the start of 2022. Between 2020 and 2022, Iran tried to collect intelligence on UK-based Israeli and Jewish individuals. We believe this information was a preparation for future lethal operations. In 2021, UK police asked partners to share information on Iran-based Mohammed Mehdi Mozayyani, a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who worked to conduct a lethal operation against Iranian dissidents here in the United Kingdom. We know that the Iranian intelligence services work with organised criminal gangs, and I can assure the House and the public that we will go after anyone working with them.
Our partners in Europe and the United States face similar threats, and we are working together to keep our people safe. My call this afternoon with other allies was about co-ordinating action that we will take to protect ourselves and ensure a unified response to these threats. We are strongest when we work with our allies around the world, and the Iranian regime should be in no doubt that we are absolutely united.
Let me be clear that this is a persistent threat. It is not carried out by rogue elements, but is a conscious strategy of the Iranian regime. Our Government will act. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has already summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires, and we will be looking at further sanctions on those linked to the Iranian regime. We already have around 300 sanctions in place against Iran, including of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety.
Today, alongside international partners, eight further individuals were sanctioned, but our response will not end there. Today I have instructed the Home Office to lead work on countering Iranian state threats, making use of the full breadth and expertise of the Government and our extraordinary and courageous police, security and intelligence agencies. We will target the full spectrum of threats we see coming from Tehran. I will be asking our security agencies to explore what more we can do with our allies to tackle threats of violence, but we will also address the wider threat to economic security from illicit finance and the threat from malign interference in our democratic society.
At home, the Charity Commission will soon report on its statutory inquiry into the Islamic Centre of England, which is accused of having links to the Iranian regime. We must ensure that our police and intelligence agencies have the power to crack down on state threats such as those from Iran, which is why I urge the House to back the National Security Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment.
The relationship we have with Iran is not the one we want; it is not the one we chose. We have a deep respect for Iran’s rich history and for the Iranian people. From the Shahnameh to the works of Saadi, the wealth of the nation has been in the words of her people. They taught ethics and governance and the importance of law, but today the tyrants in Tehran have betrayed those great pillars of Persian civilisation and are trying to silence those words and their own people, but they will not be silenced. To the brave Iranian journalists and community here in the United Kingdom, I say that this country, this Government and this whole House stands in solidarity with you against the oppression that you face.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me directly address the Iranian regime, which is responsible for these heinous crimes. We will hold you to account for your blatant violation of our laws and values. We will expose your crimes against the British people and against the Iranian people. We will expose your actions around the world. We will work with our allies to hold you to account, personally. We will act to keep our country safe. I commend this Statement to the House.”

Lord Coaker: My Lords, this Statement deals with the fact that, on the advice of counterterrorism police, a dissident Iranian TV channel has been forced to stop broadcasting in Britain. Why? Because we cannot guarantee the safety of its staff and personnel from Iranian-backed assassination or kidnap on British soil. How has it come to this? In a statement, the Iranian TV channel’s managing director said this, and I totally agree:
“I cannot believe that it has come to this. A foreign state has caused such a significant threat to the British public on British soil that we have to move. Let’s be clear that this is not just a threat to our TV station but to the British public at large. This is an assault on the values of sovereignty and free speech that the UK has always held dear.”
We are all appalled. Press freedom is fundamental to any liberal democracy, and it is right that we are all committed to its defence across this Chamber.
Iran International has been operating here successfully since 2017. During that time, it has shone a light on the violent repression of those protesting and demanding civil liberties in Iran. For that, it has been targeted by the regime—not by rogue agents, but by the state. Can the Minister tell us what meetings, if any, there have been with Iranian officials and what has been said by the Iranians by way of any possible explanation?
In November, the director-general of MI5 talked of 10 occasions on which Iran has sought to murder or kidnap individuals since the beginning of 2022. Since then, there have been a further five. While I congratulate all concerned in counterterrorism, as I know we all will, will the Minister tell us whether any of these threats were home-grown or whether they were people who had come from Iran? Can the Minister say more about the following sentence in the Minister’s Statement yesterday in the other place:
“We know that the Iranian intelligence services work with organised criminal gangs, and I can assure the House and the public that we will go after anyone working with them”?
Are these British organised criminal gangs? Is there a franchise operating? What does “going after” mean? If we know who they are, why have they not already been arrested? Can the Minister explain why, given the threat, the Government are not going further in deploying sanctions and using proscription powers against those acting on behalf of Iran?
The Minister in the other place spoke of his desire to see the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps proscribed. Why is it not, either through the use of existing powers or through new state threats equivalent powers? The IRGC was not mentioned in yesterday’s Statement at all. Why not? Why is it still free to organise and establish support here in the United Kingdom today, as we discuss what has happened? The United States proscribed the IRGC in 2019. The Intelligence and Security Committee has warned of state-sponsored assassination and is undertaking a report into Iran. Can the Minister confirm that the committee is urgently receiving all the information and support it needs from the Government?
It is clear that threats are increasing, not only abroad but here in the UK, to UK citizens, other nationals and organisations such as Iranian TV. How is the work to counter this being co-ordinated across government between the different agencies, departments and counterterrorism police? Are there sufficient resources? Given the changing threat, is any assessment about co-ordination being made? Does the Minister agree that the eyes of the world are on us? They are watching to see if we can protect our own sovereignty and our own democracy. What matters is not only the threat from Iran, but what it might tell other states posing potential or real threats—namely Russia, North Korea or China—of our ability to defend our democracy.
We must make this a safe place for journalists and others speaking truth to power. We can never allow tyranny or authoritarianism to be exported to the United Kingdom. The Government must fully grip this, and in so doing, once again, as we all would wish, stand up for our freedoms and those of others across the world, as we have always done.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the Minister for the Statement. We are all horrified that Iran International felt the need to close its offices in the UK, and I look forward to hearing his answers to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
For many years, I worked as a journalist. Many of my closest friends are journalists. The closest is no longer with us: Marie Colvin—brave, wonderful Marie, targeted by the Assad regime and murdered in Homs, Syria, in 2012. Tomorrow is the anniversary of her death. Now we see this targeting of those who seek to hold power to account happening on our own British soil. It is unacceptable, so I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that freedom of the press is sacrosanct.
As with the Government’s robust response to the Iranian Government’s behaviour towards Iran International, will they be equally robust over Iran’s behaviour toward BBC Persian and the persecution of BBC Persian staff and family members living in Iran? What they are being subjected to is appalling.
Finally, these cumulative events underline just how important our free press is, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. It is vital that, in countries like Iran, citizens have access to our wonderful BBC World Service. Consequently, does the Minister not agree that it must be properly funded and not forced into making the kinds of cuts that it has had to make recently?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their remarks, and I start mine by stating, as my right honourable friend in the other place said, that
“The United Kingdom is committed to defending our freedoms—values that define us and make us who we are—and none is more fundamental than freedom of the press.”
So I entirely echo their opinions on that subject.
As to the specific circumstances of the people in London who have been targeted by another state, the police and the security services work night and day to keep people safe, and that is what they have been doing here. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the statement this weekend from Matt Jukes, the head of counterterrorism policing at the Metropolitan Police. He set out the scale of their operations and the protective security in relation to this case to date, and said that
“The advice to relocate has not been given lightly”
but is the result of continued investigations and dedicated work to keep people safe. We thank them for that. As my right honourable friend the Security Minister said yesterday, Iran International has praised the police for their efforts, and this commendation speaks volumes.
Of course we take these attacks on a free press seriously. That is why we are doing this. As to the allusion to why we have allowed this to happen and what representations have been made to the Iranian authorities, the Foreign Secretary called the Iranian chargé d’affaires in for a meeting yesterday and we will be looking at further sanctions for those connected to the Iranian regime. There are around 300 sanctions in place against Iran, including the entirety of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Alongside international partners, we sanctioned another eight individuals yesterday.  My right honourable friend in the other place referred to speaking to international partners in Germany, France and the US yesterday, so this effort goes across Governments. We are not the only ones to suffer from this.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked what the Government are doing to disrupt Iran’s use of serious organised crime groups. He will appreciate that I cannot go into operational details—I am sure that he does not expect me to—and I appreciate that he still has to ask the question. It is concerning; it demonstrates the poor state and quality of Iranian intelligence services that they are able to conduct their activities only by resorting to criminals—small comfort. This concern does not relate only to the UK. As I just referenced, we are working closely with international partners, which face very similar threats, and a lot of other international organisations to identify, degrade and disrupt these networks to the best of our ability. We make full use of the range of powers available. I also commend to all noble Lords present the National Security Bill, which is passing through the House at the moment.
I referenced sanctions earlier. The Government are putting an enormous amount of pressure on the Iranian regime. I have a long list of sanctions, which I could go through, but I will leave it at the headline number of 300. There are a lot more that we could do but, as I said and we have discussed in many other debates on these sorts of subjects, we work with international partners and there is no point in doing this in isolation.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about proscription of the IRGC. We keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, but we do not comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. To go into more detail, we regularly assess the impact of the IRGC and its continued destabilising activity, particularly in the Middle East. As I have said, the UK maintains a range of sanctions that work to constrain its activities and we support the enforcement of UN prohibitions on the proliferation of weapons to non-state actors in the region, including to the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen—both of which are proscribed organisations.
On the ISC question, we are supplying it with as much as we can. As we talked about in December, my right honourable friend in the other place has set up a defending democracy task force. He has promised to come forward with some updates on that soon, as well as it being part of the strategic review, so we can look forward to that.
I have spoken long enough and hope I have answered the questions raised. I will conclude with some of the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Security Minister in the other place, who put it very well. I have not quite concluded, because I have forgotten to answer the noble Baroness’s question, but I will do so in finishing. My right honourable friend put this very well and, more importantly, I know that all noble Lords share these sentiments. He said:
“To the brave Iranian journalists and community here in the United Kingdom, I say that this country, this Government and this whole House stands in solidarity with you against the oppression that you face.”
He went on to say:
“let me directly address the Iranian regime, which is responsible for these heinous crimes. We will hold you to account for your blatant violation of our laws and values.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/23; cols. 49-51.]
As a postscript, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from the Government. Decisions over how its services are delivered are a matter for the BBC. The World Service is transforming to a digital-first service. Internet usage has tripled globally over the last 10 years, and a reported 84% of Iranians were using the internet in 2020. Only 1% of the BBC’s total weekly Iranian audience of 13.8 million get BBC news solely via radio; 99% use BBC Persian on TV and online. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question.

Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I declare an interest as a series producer of a made-for-television series about the war in Ukraine. Like other noble Lords, I am appalled to hear about the many kidnap and death threats against journalists in this country for holding the Iranian regime to account. I gather that there were many more than 15. They include journalists in the BBC Persian service, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, said, who have also been sanctioned and their families in Iran threatened. What plans do the British Government have to continue to raise the issue at the United Nations Human Rights Council in order to bring together an international coalition to put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop these attacks?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, the noble Lord’s question is really more for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I will make sure that it is reflected back to my colleagues in that department. I would imagine that extensive conversations and negotiations are ongoing on this subject.

Lord Cromwell: My Lords, I welcome the Government’s robust declaration of protection for UK-based journalists from threats from overseas, but I am puzzled by their equally robust refusal to protect UK journalists from threats via abuse of our own legal system through the use of SLAPPs by parties overseas, despite cross-party support to do something about it. Can the Minister explain this apparent and ugly contradiction to the House?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, these debates have been rehearsed at considerable length over the past few weeks on the National Security Bill. I have nothing more to add. Obviously, SLAPPs are outside the scope of that Bill, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject frequently.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I too have great concerns about the use of our courts to silence journalists who are speaking truth to power, so I reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. But I also congratulate the Government for taking a strong stance on Iran. What happens to  journalists also happens to lawyers, and it is a source of great concern to the International Bar Association and its Institute of Human Rights, which I direct.
We run a media freedom project that was initiated by the UK Government, and a growing source of alarm and concern is transnational oppression—the long arm of some of the worst states, the totalitarian states and those that are only too ready to kill, as well as to put journalists and human rights advocates in fear. We are seeing a greater expansion of that reach and I would like to ask whether that is being addressed inside government and the security services. We saw it in the murder of Khashoggi and in going after journalists internally and abroad. It is the same for lawyers; those who are confronting the Chinese are themselves having problems. Are we taking active steps to deal with that transnational oppression?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I thank the noble Baroness for her question and, yes, we are. The security services are very alive to these threats. She could have mentioned a number of others from recent memory, such as Litvinenko, Skripal and so on. We are very aware of the scope and scale of the emerging threats that she so eloquently described. I will not comment on the operational side of this, but I am very reassured that the security services are on top of it.

Lord Godson: I join in the general approval of the Statement across all sections of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the Security Minister in the Commons talking about the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The Security Minister made specific reference to his instruction to the Home Office, in his words
“to lead work on countering Iranian state threats, making use of the full breadth and expertise of the Government and our extraordinary and courageous police, security and intelligence agencies.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/23; col. 50.]
Would the Minister care to say a little more about that and give a little more detail about what that might entail? I am thinking particularly of a whole-of-government approach—not merely the Home Office, vital though that is—and how that can be built upon. While, as he says, he does not talk about the specifics around this particular proscription, would he care to give, in the widest policy sense, some of the general issues policy-wise and legally that might constitute barriers to entry in terms of proscribing the IRGC?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: As to that latter point, I really cannot go any further, I am afraid. It is subject to ongoing scrutiny and I know there is a significant amount of advice currently being considered in that regard. I can say no more.
The first part of my noble friend’s question is, of course, completely right. Any activity in government has to be across agencies and across departments. Part of the reason why these threats are evolving, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, just pointed out, is because the nature of the threat is evolving and the nature of the reporting of the threats is evolving. The world is changing very rapidly. So it would be foolish for just the Home Office to be looking at this when there are obviously online aspects and Treasury aspects.  These are things that we deal with in this House all the time; they come together periodically in economic crime Bills and in national security Bills. I hope noble Lords will continue to support the passage of those Bills because they will target this sort of activity.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, this situation is something of a national embarrassment, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. What message does this send out to the rest of the world? I would like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions about the new studio for Iran International because he said next to nothing about it. Could he give us some indication of the timing of the development of the new studio, when it is likely to be completed, the cost and who will pick that up? Will we, as a nation, be contributing anything to the cost of the new studio? Then there is the whole question of the siting of the new studio. Will it be on a separate site, or will it be part of an existing, well-defended site—perhaps an existing military site or similar? Really, nothing has been said about this and I would be grateful if some indication could be given about the site, timing and cost.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I am afraid I reject the premise of the question, that this is in some way a national embarrassment. I think this is actually a robust response by the counterterrorist police to an evolving situation, as I tried to explain earlier. I cannot go into details on the new site—I think it would be unwise to do so, for lots of security reasons—and I am afraid I have no details about the costs and who will be paying for it. The thing I can say about the existing site is that the police decided, having responded to a large number of threats, that it was in a difficult place to secure. Therefore, something needed to be done sooner rather than later. I think they should be praised for that.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can I take the question of Iran one step further? Does the Statement not make the timing of the closure of the BBC Persian service entirely inappropriate—all for a paltry £800,000 a year? Our foreign policy and strategy should deem this an entirely illogical move. Support for the people of Iran is paramount at this critical time, and closure will send conflicting messages about the support we have in this country for the uprising. Will the Minister take this message back to his colleagues at the Treasury to give clear approval of keeping this critical service open?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I agree with the noble Viscount that the service is indeed critical. I actually delivered some of the figures earlier on access by an Iranian audience to the BBC. Some 99%, as I said earlier, use BBC Persian on TV and online. Only 1% of the BBC’s total weekly Iranian audience of 13.8 million people get BBC news solely via radio. I agree that the BBC World Service does play a vital role in delivering high-quality, accurate and impartial broadcasting across the globe. The FCDO is providing the BBC World Service with over £94 million annually for the next three years; it supports services in 12 languages and improvements to key services in Arabic, Russian and  English. That is in addition to nearly £470 million that we have already provided though the World2020 Programme since 2016. To say it has been closed is very much an overstatement.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, over the weekend I read two stories in the media. The first was that fundamentalist clerics in Iran—a regime inspired by a warped perversion of Islam—had been plotting to murder Israelis and also British Jews here in the UK, as confirmed by the Minister in the other place yesterday. The second story was about the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi, the vision of Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, where on the same site a church, a mosque and a synagogue of equal size and equal beauty—designed by a British architect, Sir David Adjaye—have been formally opened. It is remarkable, I would suggest, that religion—in this case, the same religion—can be used to inspire murder or to promote dialogue and tolerance. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that His Majesty’s Government will do all they can to maintain vigilance and protection against the former, while equally doing all they can to support and promote the latter?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I thank my noble friend for that. He is absolutely right: between 2020 and 2022, Iran did try to collect intelligence on UK-based Israeli and Jewish individuals. We believe this information was preparation for future lethal operations. My right honourable friend in the other place highlighted that Iran has not just targeted Jews and Israelis; it has targeted LGBTQ communities, Muslims and Christians. That is not just a flagrant betrayal of the principles of international law but, as my right honourable friend also said, a betrayal of ancient principles of Persian culture. So I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should be vigilant and on guard as to the former. I absolutely salute the efforts that he described in Abu Dhabi. Anything that promotes dialogue and tolerance between religions, or indeed peoples, has to be applauded and encouraged. I will certainly encourage the Government to do that very volubly.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, this Statement is a trenchant response and I congratulate the Government on it. However, perhaps I could follow up on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and the Minister’s reply. I want to stress the extraordinary soft power represented by what the BBC is doing. The Minister was right to mention the number. In fact, the Persian service reaches 22 million globally, 13 million in Iran. I think there are fears, despite the reassurances, that it will be hard to keep up the level of broadcasting that I am sure, in many ways, the Minister and the Government would like to see. It is an extraordinary soft power. The Minister mentioned just now the cultural importance of Persia—I could not agree more. It is that communication of culture—our culture to them and their culture to us—that is so important. I still like to believe, in these awful days, even with Russia, that it is through culture and through sport that we can sometimes find a means of speaking to each other.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I think the noble Lord has just, very aptly, described common humanity, and of course I completely agree. I would be straying well beyond my remit if I was to go into soft power and all its uses. Of course, speaking personally, I completely agree. As I pointed out, the FCDO is providing the World Service with significant amounts of funding. Reading between the lines, or perhaps not, I would imagine that indicates that it also believes in the soft power aspect of the World Service. For the reasons that the noble Lord describes, how can we not?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, this is clearly a very serious situation and I would not want to detract from that at all, but one thing my noble friend has not mentioned today is the Government’s national action plan for the safety of journalists. In light of this situation, are the Government looking to see whether that needs to be reviewed in any way? Also, what, if any, engagement might Ministers have with the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which I believe was established just a few years ago? It seems quite relevant if the threats to journalists we are seeing now are growing in such a serious fashion. Alongside that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, there are other kinds of threats being made and actions being taken against journalists, at a rate we perhaps have not seen in the past.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I thank my noble friend for that question. I am afraid that I am not personally able to answer it, so I will make sure that she is written to. I think DCMS takes the lead on this area but I will make further investigations and make sure she is fully informed.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I apologise for coming back. I will look closely at the response— I recognise that not all these issues are necessarily the Minister’s bag, as it were—but, on the question of Iran, he needs to be aware, as I am sure the Government and the Minister sitting next to him are, that the ability of people in Iran to receive the World Service is restricted because of the lack of internet and other such issues. The ability of people in the interior of Iran to get the message from the BBC Persian service needs to be looked at.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I shall make sure that my noble friend to my left is aware of the noble Viscount’s point.

Raid of BBC Offices in India
 - Commons Urgent Question

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister for the Americas  and Caribbean to an Urgent Question in another place on the raids of BBC offices in India. The Answer is as follows:
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the honourable Member for Strangford, Jim Shannon, for raising this Urgent Question. I appreciate his interest in recent news that India’s income tax department has conducted what is described as a ‘survey’ on the BBC’s offices in New Delhi and Mumbai. This began on 14 February and finished after three days, on 16 February.
As everyone in this House will be aware, the BBC is, quite rightly, operationally and editorially independent of His Majesty’s Government. While I cannot comment on the allegations made by India’s income tax department, the BBC has said that it is supporting its staff in its Indian offices and co-operating with the Indian authorities to resolve this matter as soon as possible.
Respect for the rule of law is an essential element of an effective democracy; so too are an independent media and freedom of speech. They make countries stronger and more resilient, and that is why we regularly engage with different parts of India’s media and support it, for example through the annual South Asia Journalism Fellowship programme and our flagship Chevening brand, which includes over 60 Indian alumni.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has previously said, the UK regards India as an important partner and His Majesty’s Government are investing heavily in strengthening our ties. Our broad and deep relationship, guided by our comprehensive strategic partnership and the 2030 roadmap for India-UK future relations allows us to discuss a wide range of issues in a constructive manner with the Government of India. We will continue to follow this matter closely.”

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. India, of course, has a unique status as the world’s largest democracy but as the Minister said, in any democracy media freedoms are vital and freedom of expression must be protected. Earlier today, when the Question was asked in the House of Commons, my honourable friend Fabian Hamilton asked the Minister if the FCDO is directly engaging with the BBC World Service to offer support and protection following these events, particularly for the BBC staff in India. Obviously, linked to the previous Statement, it is really important that the Government offer that additional support. Given that the Minister in the House of Commons was unable to confirm that, I hope that the Minister can do so tonight.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that, yes, we are of course engaging with the BBC directly at FCDO. Indeed, as he will know, I have been involved in the important issue of the safety and protection of journalists for a number of years. As I said in the original Statement, the protection of journalists around the world, but also media freedom, are essential parts of any progressive, inclusive democracy.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, the rule of law and freedom of speech are vital for a thriving democracy, as the noble Lord has said. I agree with the noble  Lord, Lord Collins, that support for the BBC needs to be clear. Will the Government now pause any discussions on services and data in the free trade talks until and unless urgent and satisfactory clarification is given regarding the potential use of laws in this area for political retribution? Does he also recognise—we have discussed this before—the impact that India’s law on foreign contributions has had on a number of NGOs, including Oxfam, and which is considered to have raised human rights issues?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, of course, correct in her second question. I continue to engage directly with various organisations, and I meet with their representatives regularly. The strength of our relationship allows us to raise these important issues directly with India and to make progress on them. On the first issue the noble Baroness raised, it is important that we continue to engage directly with India. Our talks and discussions are multi-faceted. We are very conscious that the current investigation is ongoing, so I will not comment on any specifics. However, having engaged directly with the Indian authorities and met with the Indian High Commissioner only yesterday to discuss this matter, I understand that the BBC and the Indian authorities are working very closely and looking to resolve the issues as soon as possible.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I know the Minister is very alert to the particular problems journalists experience when Governments do not like the criticisms they face, particularly of human rights abuses. However, this is not the first time India has displayed a sort of retribution policy towards journalists and journalistic entities that are critical of what is happening under the Modi Administration. The Minister talks about our close relationship with India and its enabling frank discussions, but can we genuinely discuss the hostility that those who criticise human rights abuses are experiencing? A young woman journalist, Rana Ayyub, was refused exit to travel to Britain to take part in seminars and a conference about the way in which the Muslim community in India were suffering at the hands of the Government. Just how frank can the Government be with our great friend India?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I recognise equally the important work the noble Baroness continues to champion on media freedom around the world and the protection of journalists. I assure her that the strength of our relationship with India is such that, in my various hats, including as Human Rights Minister, there is a regular dialogue on particular issues and cases. We have constructive exchanges. As I have experienced during my time as Minister responsible, the level and nature of our engagement, and our ability to engage—at times not in a public manner but privately—has unlocked and seen progress. Equally, we expect that kind of scrutiny of ourselves as well. I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices in ensuring that, when issues arise, we raise them directly and constructively with the Indian authorities. At times we will do this in significant private engagements, but those also unlock constructive outcomes.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the Minister give an insight into what advice, if any, has been given by the BBC India legal and accounting team on what might be the best moves in this regard? Is the FCDO connecting directly with these professional services to be assured that everything is being done in the way which we know that it will be being done, and that we have the good advice of professional services within India?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I cannot comment too much on this ongoing investigation by the Indian authorities, but the BBC is engaging very constructively. We all know that the BBC is a professional organisation, independent editorially and in its governance and structures. It is important that we look to resolve these particular issues. The BBC is a valued asset of the United Kingdom around the world. As we saw in the earlier Statement, it provides valuable sources of information as well. It is important for us to seek, through our relationship with India, to resolve in a constructive way any issues that arise across the piece on human rights or any other matters. Both countries are absolutely committed to strengthening our relationship bilaterally.

Lord Dodds of Duncairn: I think I heard the Minister say that he met the high commissioner in London on this specific issue. For the sake of clarity, could he confirm whether that is the case? If so, does the Minister have plans to meet the high commissioner or for the Government to engage with the Indian authorities as this investigation is concluded, because obviously follow-up is extremely important in this matter?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the short answer to my noble friend’s first question is yes. As I said, it is the nature of that engagement and our investment in that relationship which allows us to engage in such a direct way. Our high commissioner and his team on the ground in Delhi are engaging and have raised these issues with the Indian authorities. The important thing is that the BBC is engaging constructively with the Indian authorities. We all hope that there will be a progressive resolution to these issues and that the BBC will continue to operate as it does elsewhere. I am refraining from commenting too much because this is ongoing, but the important thing in all this is that the BBC and the authorities are engaging constructively—and it is clear to me that they are.

Baroness Northover: I want to come back to the first question I asked the Minister, which I do not think he fully answered. Will the Government look at pausing discussions on services and data in the free trade talks in the light of what is happening?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I believe I have already answered the question. The importance of the FTA is such that, if and when certain issues arise, we will aim to address them constructively. The important thing is that both countries are absolutely committed to delivering an inclusive, multifaceted FTA, and our progress will continue on all fronts in that regard.
Sitting suspended.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
 - Second Reading (Continued)

Lord Cashman: My Lords, in my old profession this session was called the interval act—the act charged with getting the audience back from the bar, and it very often failed.
The Minister has known me a long time, so I will speak plainly. Before I do, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, on her wonderful maiden speech; she is not in her place, but I have personally conveyed my thanks to her. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady O’Grady on her impressive opening statement from our Benches, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is also not in his place, on his legal demolition of this skeletal, and I believe unnecessary, Bill.
I suggest to the Minister that, if we want to ensure minimum service levels in vital industries, the easy way to achieve that is by giving the workforce the right terms and conditions—perhaps that is a little revolutionary.
A lot was said by the other side about people who withdraw their labour without a concern for others, and I want to make it abundantly clear that doctors, nurses, ambulance workers, support staff, teachers, firefighters, public service workers and any other workers —and, yes, transport workers—do not go on strike easily or lightly. They do not take their responsibilities as something to be casually cast aside without a thought, and to suggest otherwise is not only untrue but grossly offensive. In some instances, the industrial action we are seeing is the first such action ever taken, such as by the Royal College of Nursing, and now junior doctors, including registrars, have decided that they too will strike for 48 hours next month. These actions by a stressed workforce are evidence to me that the Government are trying to provide public services on the backs of those who are underpaid, overworked and unable to continue in this minefield of unprecedented work stress, mental health crises, and seriously underfunded and broken public services.
I also believe that the Bill is a stark admission that the Government have no intention of paying those in public service what they should be paid, or of negotiating or allowing other public sector employers to negotiate. It is a stark admission that they have every intention of using legislation and punitive sanctions to intimidate ordinary working people and their unions. I believe that this will result in more people quitting these vital services and professions, and, ultimately, it will force more public services into wider private ownership.
There are others who will speak, and who have spoken, with great wisdom on trade union legislation, industrial relations and the ILO. However, I speak in a personal capacity—as a trade union member of over 55 years, as a previous unpaid national officer and negotiator of British Actors’ Equity, and as someone who has worked on building sites, as a hospital cleaner  and as a proud hospital porter. Most of all, I speak because I will not allow my silence to be mistaken for condoning this shabby and shoddy legislation. I speak up because I will not remain silent as I see the Government trying to keep this country’s public services afloat at the expense of the workforce, some of whom then have to queue in line at food banks to survive.
I look at what is happening and I ask myself what kind of country we have become. I ask myself: how can this happen in the sixth-largest economy in the world? If I am honest, I have to ask myself: do the Government believe that these measures will work? I do not believe that they do. I believe that the Government’s motivation is that it is politically advantageous for them, in that they hope that the public mood changes and will turn against the nurses, doctors, teachers, fire service, ambulance workers, transport workers, teachers, and ancillary and support staff, and will turn against the political parties who support them, such as my party, the Labour party. I find this deeply offensive: a Government hoping that the public will turn against the very people they implored us every week to stand on our doorsteps and applaud.
We applauded key workers across the vast range of public services who gave beyond what they needed to give to pull this country through a pandemic which has taken over 219,000 lives. Key workers kept our country going and gave us hope as the Government opened a VIP lane for PPE contracts for their friends. Contrast the treatment of those seeking PPE contracts with the treatment now being foisted, and soon to be forced by legislation, on key workers.
Once again, I ask myself: what kind of country have we really become? I have come to the sad and damning conclusion that there is something rotten in the state, and in the state of this Government, and it is embodied once again in a divisive and shabby piece of legislation.

Baroness Bryan of Partick: My Lords, what an amazing speech to follow.
What can I say? The Bill totally misunderstands the relationship between trade unions and their members. For example, when it talks about a union’s role in enforcing work notices, it prohibits
“an act done by the union to induce a person to take part, or to continue to take part, in the strike”.
Trade unions do not call strikes; members call strikes. The party opposite thought that strikes could be prevented by having paper ballots, and then by requiring that ballots be sent to the member’s home address, but these pesky trade unionists do occasionally support strike ballots. It is beyond question that a strike can take place only if a significant percentage of members vote for it.
Some members of the Conservative Party cannot accept that trade unions are a legitimate part of civic society, with an established and well-respected role in representing their members in negotiations, ensuring health and safety, and improving levels of service and productivity. They are not the enemy; instead, we should be worried about those who attack civil liberties and workers’ rights, because they are the danger to the rights of the majority.
While sitting here earlier, I saw a message on my phone appealing for me to oppose the Bill—I think that they knew I would. It came from a friend who is a firefighter in Scotland. Last Friday, she and other firefighters were in Edinburgh for the funeral of the firefighter Barry Martin, an FBU member who died doing his job. He was not giving minimum service; he, as many workers do, was giving maximum service.
Trade union rights were won in struggle, not granted from above. The movement has a proud tradition of fighting for basic human dignity, including challenging child labour, fighting for the eight-hour day and for time off at weekends and holidays, for equal pay and much more. If the public had to choose between the Government and workers to set minimum standards for essential services, we can guess who they would trust to do what is in the best interests of service users—that includes railway workers—and it would not be this Government, who have allowed those very services to be driven into the ground.
The BMA has long called on the Government to ensure safe-staffing levels across the NHS, but to no avail. It is ironic that the Government are now focusing on minimum staffing levels as a reason to curtail strike action, when protecting the NHS goes to the very heart of why those healthcare workers are striking in the first place. Can the Minister understand that the Bill will set back industrial relations in public services and beyond?
My second concern about the Bill is its impact on devolution. The Government appear to have given up on even pretending that they respect the devolved Administrations. There was no consultation with them about the Bill even though it will apply to devolved public services, for which Welsh and Scottish Ministers are responsible. The Welsh Government are concerned that
“If passed, the Bill will provide a UK Minister with sweeping powers to make regulations which set minimum service levels during strikes in areas that are considered to be fully devolved … UK Ministers should not be able to exercise such powers over services over which they have no electoral mandate.”
The Scottish Government rightly object to the Bill interfering with their fair work principles, which they have negotiated with unions and employers. Does the Minister not think that the Bill is exactly why Scotland and Wales should be given powers over industrial relations?
The third question I would like to clarify is whether the Bill further undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. We have heard a lot today from much more experienced people than me on the use of skeleton Bills, but they are clearly a means of avoiding the legitimate scrutiny that legislation in the UK is expected to receive. To quote the scathing words of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, with its wonderful title Government by Diktat:
“This Report is intended to issue a stark warning—that the balance of power between Parliament and government has for some time been shifting away from Parliament”.
Much has been said, including recently in this very Chamber, about the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and how it is fundamental to the union. It is being whittled away in every Bill of this type. Anyone who believes in parliamentary democracy needs to stand up against the Bill. Can the Minister say who  should make laws: Parliament or government? If he thinks it should be Parliament, will he accept that the Bill cannot be allowed to proceed?

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, I am totally opposed to the Bill, not least because it is an act of evasion and avoids tackling some genuinely dire problems in public services. Instead, it aims to punish ordinary people for daring to ask the perfectly reasonable question: “Will you give us pay rises in line with inflation to get us through this economic crisis, which is not of our making?”.
Yesterday, I spent hours in this Chamber listening to some fine rhetoric from the Government and across the House about levelling up: about improving the lives and living standards of millions of people who are struggling because of where they live and a lack of opportunities. I confess that I had some qualms about a paternalistic tone in terms of helping the northern poor. However, what is interesting today is that we encounter real workers—not passive supplicants—standing up for themselves, sometimes bolshie and angry, but unwilling to be forced to accept a pay cut. What is the Government’s response to workers fighting for a bit of DIY levelling up? They call their actions selfish and greedy, and smear them as a risk to public safety.
Yet again, we are offered an unnecessary law. The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, wrote an excellent article recently in which he noted:
“The itch to announce a new law … often feels irresistible to governments, but it … always has bad results.”
The Minister should read that article because it is a warning of the unintended consequences of overlegislating. There is already a plethora of laws arming the state with emergency powers to ensure that strike action does not seriously threaten people’s welfare and ensures life and limb cover. What is more, the mechanism of the law has been used as a blunt instrument since the 1980s to weaken trade union power, so being able to legally call a strike requires a ridiculously high, but arbitrary, turnout and a voting threshold of 40% and 50% respectively. Note that this unelected Chamber would not often reach that threshold, and we have the temerity to make the laws of the land.
Despite the Trade Union Act 2016 setting such onerous strike-busting restrictions, the recent turnouts in strike ballots across workplaces have smashed through those obstacles. You would hope that might give the Government pause for thought to ask why so many working people who the state relies on to man railways, treat the ill, put out fires, guard borders, teach our kids, and so on, are so unhappy at work that even sectors that have not voted to strike for decades are now downing tools. This should prompt politicians to take these people and their demands seriously. But no; instead, they drag out some Thatcherite cliches about the 1970s and, as always, think the solution is more illiberal law to change the rules and make striking even harder. However, in the haste to play the hard man, we end up with shoddy legislation which even Jacob Rees-Mogg has described as “badly written”, saying that it smacks of “incompetence”.
Introducing the Bill in the other place, the Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, tried to gaslight trade unionists with this repetition: “This is not an attack on the right to strike” —we have heard various iterations of that today. However, with even more cynicism, he emphasised that the Bill is about the rights of the public, who
“work hard and expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 54.]
Hear, hear to that. However, if your object is to give public services to the public when they need them, why focus on strikers as the culprits for poor service? Why not target those who consistently run poor services?
I can tell your Lordships, as a regular Avanti West Coast train user, that there has been little difference between strike and non-strike days for months and months. Where are the minimum service regulations or punishments for train operators when trains are routinely cancelled or late, or for those at the top of the NHS who are responsible for the public facing waiting lists of years for treatment? What mechanisms do we have to impose minimum services on government departments which have singularly failed to control our national borders, or will the Government blame the small boats crisis on strikers too?
This whole Bill smacks of a cynical attempt to scapegoat striking workers for the wretched state of public services. It is an unjustified smear to suggest strikers are putting the public’s lives at risk. I find it particularly galling because one recent policy really did deny people health and social service and put their health at risk, with dire consequences; namely the shutting down of society for years in response to the pandemic. Who turned the NHS into a Covid-only service, with no regard for minimum service provision for those at risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke? Not even life and limb cover was provided. While we might not all agree in here on lockdown policies, my point is that those of us who argued for a more proportionate response to Covid and for maintaining services were often shooed away, but those services are now still creaking to recover. Long-term damage and suffering caused to the public, especially children, is a consequence of decisions made here in this Parliament and will be felt for years to come. That is where the energies of Parliament should lie: focus on that and not on offloading blame elsewhere.
One reason why so many workers are demoralised and burned out, as we have heard here today, is staff shortages and the struggle to recruit and retain staff for even minimum services, day in and day out. I am all for the Government trying to tackle this. It will need creative, courageous, radical solutions, and some of these might lead to clashes with trade unions—so be it. For example, I think that we need to look at seven-day NHS provision, and that GP surgeries should be open over weekends and for longer hours. I am impressed by the work of renal consultant Dr Andrew Stein in his 7DS policy, which wants to get more consultants into hospitals over weekends and elective surgery seven days a week. No doubt some of those ideas will clash with the BMA. So what? I support the rights of trade unions but I do not put them on a pedestal. I have no doubt there might be clashes with unions if we shake up public services and deal with the  huge task of recruiting more staff to tackle our problems, but this Bill is counterproductive and will not work. Does the Minister think it is a productive use of overstretched public services personnel to invest time and resources to work out who needs to be in work, how many people and where, in order to create work notices? What a bureaucratic waste of time that is, with more management red tape—great.
My final point is on the public. There is no doubt that the strikes are disruptive and a real pain, creating more obstacles to negotiate just to get through the day, and sometimes they are scary, if you need to call an ambulance and so on. Many parents, for example, feel betrayed by education unions that denied children and students even a minimum education over the Covid years, and feel bitter that so many public servants are still working from home and not providing adequate face-to-face services. To the unions I say that there is no room for complacency. After all, only 23% of workers are members of a union, so unions need to work proactively to win hearts and minds beyond their members. To the Government I say do not make assumptions about the public and where they will land on this issue. The Government should not treat the public as their own army. I think the public are intelligent enough to work this out. A great notice we got in preparation for this debate from a group called Organise made the point that many non-trade unionists support these strikes, and their message is that they stand in solidarity—so do I.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, many of those who have spoken have referred to historical matters. I am going to take us back to the economic crisis of 2007-08, because it was then that we had austerity policies introduced by George Osborne as our Chancellor.

A noble Lord: It was Alistair Darling.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: What has that got to do with it?
The mantra that was sold to the public was that we were all in this together; that we would all have to deal with austerity in order to get our finances right. Well the burden was not shared by all. The burden was borne largely by public services and by those who work in public service. It was, in my view, a deliberate and conscious policy to shrink the state, and we are paying the consequences of that now. Many of the people who have been on strike, and who continue to vote for strikes, have suffered the consequences.
There is a recent history of wage suppression, particularly in the public sector, with people seeing a drop in their income of up to 25% over the last 13 years. We have seen the casual erosion of employment rights; an increase in precarious work such as zero-hours contracts; and the burn-out of so many workers, as has been mentioned, because of staff shortages—largely a consequence of our hard-line Brexit position and the Government’s inadequacy to plan for a future workforce.
The health sector in particular has suffered. I know this directly because I come from a family where my daughter and her husband are both in the health  service, as was my husband for many years. They see what is happening to doctors, nurses and all the ancillary workers, the people driving ambulances and the paramedics inside them. Let us not forget, as we are sitting in this Chamber, that the queues of ambulances were not caused by strikes; they are due to the chaos caused by a reduction of the National Health Service’s resources over many years. It is hypocrisy that the necessary work that was being done during the pandemic by transport workers, health workers and carers was seen as celebratory. We clapped and said it was wonderful, and I imagined that that would be the moment we would decide that we had to pay the public sector properly when we came out of the pandemic. Instead, of course, we are ending up making other kinds of choices.
I am afraid that the Conservative Party is going to be seen again as the nasty party. It is going to be seen again as the party that protects the interests of the well-to-do. Here are the people who have been holding things together, and they are asking only to be given what they justly deserve.
I remind everyone that the right to strike is so important because it is respected that it is locked into our understanding of power and who has it. At the end of the day, the only power available to an employee who is being treated unjustly, being inadequately rewarded and working in unacceptable conditions is the power to withdraw their labour. But there is no positive right to strike in English common law. This right is written into the constitutions of many other nations, but, at the moment in the UK, a strike is a fundamental breach of contract. There is limited protection from dismissal for the worker and protection from civil liability for the union in statutory law: the trade union and labour relations Act, which has of course been referred to, puts many hurdles in the way of getting to the point of being able to go on strike, and the unions comply with this.
I remind everyone that, as long ago as 1947, we signed up to the ILO convention on protecting the rights of workers and their right to strike. There is also some protection of the right to strike in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but I am afraid that, as a lawyer, I have very little confidence about the future of all of this, given that we are already hearing talk from Conservative politicians about getting rid of the European Convention on Human Rights, and we have had displays of ready breaches of international law. So I am afraid I do not have much confidence in the ways in which the right to strike is being protected.
This is yet another layer of obligation, on top of what my noble friends Lord Monks and Lady Bryan described as the whole business of holding the ballot, having to reach certain thresholds, giving 14 days’ notice of any strike action, and so on, in order to make sure that you will not be sacked and there will not be civil liability for the union. This additional layer of obligation—minimum service levels—is being added. Having listened to this debate, it has become clear to me that people think that minimum service levels are about it being as if there is no strike at all—almost as if you will have the same service as on any other day, bad as that might be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said.
The Bill adds another layer of obligation and does precisely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said: it is yet another seizure of power by the Executive and away from Parliament, which happens all too often now. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, also spoke of the bizarre nature of the proposal: an employer creating one of these work notices is the very person against whom the strike is being introduced, because they are not behaving well. So is there a risk that those work notices coming from employers might go to the leaders of strikes? Who gets to choose, and how will this be done? They say, “in consultation with workers”, but there is a big gulf between consulting and negotiating. Negotiation with the unions is how this should be, and has been, done: UNISON has already made agreements with every trust in the country in relation to minimum services for health.
Most bizarre of all is that the Bill imposes a duty on the union to co-operate with the employer to defeat the strike. I emphasise that—just think of how ridiculous it is. People are using their last resort to get some justice in terms of reward for their work, and every single one of them—be they teachers, nurses or junior doctors, of whom my daughter is one—does their job because they love it and care about the quality of service that they provide. They know that it is now not being provided to the standard that they were made to believe it would be, and this is breaking their hearts.
My daughter tells me that many of the young people who studied medicine with her are now making the choice to go to New Zealand or Australia to work, because the conditions are so much better there. They are burned out after what they have been through, and there is an absence or shortage of staff. Get to the real point of this: negotiation is the best way for there to be good industrial relations. The Bill is unnecessary, and I hope to goodness that the Government see sense.

Lord Sahota: My Lords, some of my points have already been made, but it is well worth repeating some of them. I declare that I am a member of the GMB. Last Friday, I attended my local branch meeting, where I presented my workplace report, in which I sought my branch members’ views and comments on the Bill. Comments were wide-ranging, and some would not warrant repeating in your Lordships’ House. The overwhelming view was that this a typical Conservative policy of union-bashing to keep the unions and their members in their place.
When I worked on the shop floor all those years ago, the only weapon we had against the might of that international engineering company to fight for our rights was the right to withdraw our labour, which was our basic human right. We did not like it, because we were losing our pay, but it was a last resort after all the negotiation had failed. As I said, this was the only weapon we had.
This Government are taking that away from the workers and that is despicable. Where is the Conservative Party’s compassion, which it talks about so much? Two years ago, the Government were clapping workers to the rafters for their dedication and sacrifice, and now, through legislation, they want to sack them and  control them if they stand up for their rights. This same Government want to apply this legislation to virtually break a legitimate and democratically called strike by saying that 80% or 90% of the workers must report to work under minimum service levels.
All the rights the trade unions fought for and won for the workers over the last 100 years or so are being swept aside in one fell swoop by this Government. It was trade unions that got the workers their sick pay, maternity leave, equal pay for women, annual bank holidays, annual leave, health and safety at work legislation, and equal rights and equal pay for minority communities. Whichever way you look at it, the Bill has more holes in it than a rotten cheese. It is draconian, because Ministers will impose a minimum service level through a statutory instrument, which means it will face limited parliamentary scrutiny, since we all know that no statutory instrument has been rejected since 1979. It takes away workers’ legal rights to strike; they can be dismissed on the spot with no legal rights. It lacks proper parliamentary scrutiny; it takes away workers’ rights to defend their pay and conditions; it gives unfettered power to Ministers to do whatever they like, and this has enormous implications for the workers affected.
This so-called Henry VIII power gives the Minister authority to amend any other primary legislation. What frightens me even more about this legislation is that many details will be determined in secondary legislation, and we all know how that works—in favour of the Government, without any debate or scrutiny. It is a gross infringement of the individual’s freedom. Workers could be dismissed for taking action that has been agreed in a democratic ballot, in line with the Government’s union legislation, which was Lord Tebbit’s union legislation of 1982 or something along those lines. Not only that, it is in breach of our international legal commitments, of which we are historically so proud. The Bill is unnecessary. It is already custom and practice that during any industrial dispute, emergency cover is there to protect the public.
In conclusion, can the Minister explain to the House how employers will assess the equality implications of targeting specific individuals to provide a minimum level of service? Can he explain why the Bill is being debated before any consultation has been conducted or completed with any of the designated sectors?

Lord Liddle: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sahota has reminded me, in his excellent speech, that I should declare an interest as a member of the GMB. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her maiden speech. Having spent 20 years of my life on different local authorities, I am very keen on the voice of local government being stronger in this House, and I am sure that that is what she will bring.
I have a lot of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his role as Minister here. A fortnight ago, he introduced for us the revocation of EU law Bill, which I described as one of the silliest Bills ever to come before this House. Today, he is defending this strikes Bill, which I think is one of the stupidest Bills ever to come before this House, because its effects will be totally negative.
One may not have agreed with Margaret Thatcher—a lot of us did not—when she legislated for trade union reform, but she did it for what she regarded as a constructive economic and social purpose. This Bill does not have a constructive economic and social purpose; it is about gesture politics, about making headlines and about making the fractious, disillusioned members of the Tory party feel good about themselves, bringing back memories of the Thatcher days, hoping against all hope that they might return. I think it is a scandalously opportunistic, trivial measure.
I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, when she said—in a very good speech, if I may say so—that the public need a safety net. I sympathise with that, but I do not think it is practical to legislate for it. I do not think a safety net can be put in place by ministerial direction. Circumstances vary enormously from one public service to another—in fact, from one hospital to another, and all the rest. To a large extent, as we have heard from many contributions in this debate, a safety net already exists, because local representatives and management have agreed what line cannot be crossed. We are much more likely to make progress, if we want a safety net, by a patient process of negotiation than by ministerial directions from on high that can only make matters worse.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in his characteristically brilliant speech, said that this legislation raises major questions of principle. He is right and I hope everyone here—I believe they do—believes that the right to strike is a crucial democratic right. Now I am going to say something that some people on my side might not agree with. I do not think it is an unfettered right.
Personally, after the winter of discontent and the 1979 election, when 80%, I think, of people who voted Labour in that election thought that trade union reform was necessary, I supported reform. I supported ballots and I supported restrictions on mass picketing. When the Social Charter came in, which was the great revolution in this area, bringing in individual legal rights, I recognised that the closed shop was no longer sustainable. So I do not support an unfettered right, but I do very much agree that it is extremely dangerous for the right to strike for this Bill to enact what is a huge surrender of parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive; what in 1930s Germany would have been called an enabling Bill—that is what this Bill is.
The Bill gives Ministers the power to change the law—even to change laws that do not presently exist. I just do not think it is right that this degree of discretion, which could result, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, in a situation where the right to strike was, in effect, illegal, is acceptable. I just do not think it is acceptable. We know in our House that the fact that these statutory instruments will come to us through the affirmative procedure is a very weak form of parliamentary accountability, unless we change the practice that we have adopted over many years.
Fundamentally, the Bill is a distraction from the central question, and here I agree with what my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti and others have said. The central issue we face is a crisis in public services, which face a real existential threat as a consequence of a pay policy which is holding back  public sector pay as against private sector pay in the face of the cost of living crisis. I have to say to the Government that it is not sustainable, it simply is not.
I know care workers in Cumbria who are going off to work in supermarkets and we cannot recruit any replacements. I know nurses who are leaving the profession. The fact is that as they leave, we are recruiting more, but we cannot make up for the numbers who are going. I know doctors who are looking for the earliest opportunity to retire because they just cannot fact the pressure.
If we are going to run effective public services, we have to have larger numbers of people working in them who are contented with their lot. That is not the case at the moment. It is not sustainable to simply hold down public sector pay as a means of trying to keep public expenditure under control. I say to the Government that I know why they are doing that: they want to promise tax cuts before the next election. But are we to face the ruination of our public services for this electorally opportunist goal? I do not think that we should.
What we need is a new approach to public sector pay. We should be looking at the way the review body system works and the criteria those bodies look at when they come up with their recommendations. Less regard should be paid to what is called affordability and more regard paid to labour market sustainability. Employers should engage with the unions on how we can change working practices in the public services so that we can afford higher pay. I do not agree, by the way, with the RMT position of demanding an unconditional offer. I think that is unacceptable; you have to be willing to negotiate on working practices as well as on pay. I would like to see more use of arbitration. Again, that is something the Government should be promoting—but they should not promote this Bill. This Bill is crazy. It does nothing to help the public service crisis. It will only make the situation worse, and we really deserve something much better.

Lord Fox: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. There is an old maxim that applies here and now: everything has been said, but not everyone has said it—and now it is my turn to say it.
This has been an interesting Second Reading— I really mean that—and I have enjoyed your Lordships’ contributions, particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I am sure she is going to be a strident voice on local government, and we welcome that voice. Even if we do not always agree with what it says, it is representing a sector that has been underrepresented in your Lordships’ House, so I say to the noble Baroness: welcome.
As we have heard, the Bill imposes obligations on trade unions and individuals to comply with minimum service levels, enabling employers within specific services to issue work notices to roster the workforce required to secure those minimum service levels on a strike day. At its heart, the Bill seeks to grant broad powers to Ministers to limit strike action, and to introduce sweeping Henry VIII powers to amend, repeal or revoke primary  legislation through regulation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, so eloquently explained, this is another attempt at shifting power from Parliament to Ministers.
My noble friends Lord Allan, Lord Strasburger and Lady Randerson, along with many of your Lordships, explained that, in reality, the Bill is another attempt by the Conservatives to distract from their appalling mismanagement of the economy and their failure to avert public sector strikes in the first place. This is a political Bill. It has nothing to do with the practical needs of industrial relations or the real-life delivery of services. It was designed to protect the Government from a strike backlash, and it has failed to do that. The government spokespeople do not even mention the Bill anymore, because they know that it does not work; it has failed. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that this Bill was not in the Conservative Party manifesto. One that dealt specifically with rail services and trains was in the manifesto, but this Bill is a bigger and different animal from that Bill altogether.
But more deeply, this Bill fails to get under the skin of the real crises in public services, and we have heard that from many of your Lordships. These crises should be seen in the context of the relentless effect of the past few years on employee morale, mental health and well-being.
Further, this Bill is an admission that the Government do not understand how the lives and livelihoods of our valued public sector workers have been eroded over time. It fails to grasp the recruitment crisis across the public sector. Far from making it more attractive to work in these services, this Bill is a huge disincentive to possible new recruits.
Looking beyond this huge array of failures, I will now talk about the concept of minimum service levels. As we have heard from many of your Lordships, the notion of a minimum service level is one that should start from the day-to-day level of service we get when there are no strikes at all. Are the tens of thousands of people waiting weeks to see their GP getting a minimum service level? Are the people right across Britain waiting sometimes tens of hours for ambulances getting a minimum service level? Are the people trying to travel by train from Manchester to Leeds experiencing a minimum service level?
This is the baseline from which this legislation is working. In health, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Allan and many others, minimum service levels will not cut waiting lists or help solve staff shortages in the NHS. There will still be huge overcrowding and delays and terrible problems for people who are facing an emergency.
On the railways, even the Government’s Transport Secretary—I forget which one—has said that this legislation will make no difference to the current strikes. As we have heard time and again, the best way to avoid disruption of this kind and to prevent strikes in the first place is to get around the table and have meaningful, trusted talks with staff and their employers.
Judging by this evening’s news, it seems that there may be the beginning of a damascene conversion coming for the Government, but it is late. You solve strikes only by people sitting down and discussing  them. That is how strikes end. They always end with an agreement and that is what the Government should have been seeking from day one.
Then, there is a central concern around the erosion of the rights of the individual, something we on these Benches hold very dear. This Bill shifts the responsibility for delivering a minimum service level on to the individual worker. We believe that this is fundamentally wrong. In setting out their minimum service levels the Government are shirking their duty of care and shifting the onus of service delivery squarely on to named individuals. It is not the Minister, the bosses, or even the union leaders who will be sacked in the morning if the Government’s standards are not met; it is those individual workers.
To be clear, the Bill removes protection from workers who are currently allowed to strike without losing their jobs. As we have heard from the Minister very clearly, there is no automatic protection from unfair dismissal for an employee who is identified in a valid work notice but participates in a strike contrary to that work notice. Quite simply, an employee identified in a valid work notice for a strike day who takes strike action that day and fails to comply with the work notice can be sacked. I am pretty sure that is not what the ILO had in mind.
Moving on, the Bill does not contain any detail about what the minimum service levels will be; however, some consultations have begun to appear and are now out for scrutiny. That is helpful, although the latest arrived only about an hour before we convened in this room.
My noble friend Lord Allan spoke about the ambulance service consultation. I will not repeat what he said, except to say that we do not have a national ambulance service, so how do the Government plan to implement a national minimum service level without doing what they are already doing, which is having local discussions with local service deliverers?
Then, there is the fire and rescue minimum service level consultation document. The consultation notes for this document offer an interesting confirmation of the importance of collective bargaining. It cites Portugal, France, Spain and Italy and makes it clear, as we have heard from many noble Lords, that in each of these cases the minimum service levels on offer in these countries are the result of collective agreement between employers and unions. We thank the Minister and the Government for confirming the essential difference between this legislation and the situation in other countries—a difference which effectively undermines the approach of this Bill completely.
However, I really want to bring one element of this fire service document to your Lordships’ attention; it was alluded to en passant by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. In the foreword to the consultation, the Home Secretary raises the horror of the Grenfell Tower tragedy while, at the same time, calling for minimum service levels during strikes. Page 11 of the online consultation then adds to this by raising the Manchester Arena disaster. I remind your Lordships that this is a minimum service level consultation document.
Whatever failings existed around those two tragedies, they would not in any way have been altered or met through a minimum service level agreement on striking.  It is entirely inappropriate, and a dreadful piece of political opportunism, that these two issues have been conflated. I believe that it is beneath the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, whom I respect; I mean that, I really do. I ask him both to use his response to distance himself from that approach and to go back to his department and seek to remove those passages from the consultation document.
To close, the Bill is taking powers from individuals and giving them to Ministers. Individuals could be fired by ministerial edict if they refuse to work when they have been given a work notice during a strike. Meanwhile, the Bill hands powers to Ministers at the expense of Parliament. It remains unclear what the specific provisions for minimum service levels will be and how they will relate to day-to-day service levels that are widely falling short of need and expectation. Several speakers have talked about balancing rights and responsibilities. If there is to be any such balancing activity it should be Parliament that does the weighing, not Ministers or Secretaries of State.
For those reasons, when the Bill Committee convenes, it needs to address at least a number of issues. We should aim to remove the Henry VIII powers; ensure that minimum service regulations are made only after consultation and negotiation with social partners, and then properly approved by Parliament; conduct realistic impact assessments on the Bill before it comes into operation; and remove the onus on individuals to carry the can for delivering minimum service levels. We on these Benches promise the Minister a high service level when it comes to that Committee’s work. We will do our best to help him take out the invidious elements of the Bill, which, frankly, make up most of it.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for her excellent maiden speech. I truly welcome her commitment to public service and her aspiration to make a difference; she will make a strong difference in this House. I also agree with her wholeheartedly that we need more women in Parliament and certainly more women in power. That would also make a difference.
I wish to mention the fact that the news tonight is that, at long last, the Government have agreed to sit down with the RCN and negotiate a settlement that will truly reflect the value this country places on nurses. The pity, of course, is that it has taken so long to reach this point. Some 140,000 appointments need not have been cancelled had the Government talked to the RCN, rather than ignoring its position. That is an important thing which we should have in the backs of our minds when we talk about the Bill.
A major focus of today’s debate, and a point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made clear in his contribution, is whether it is right that we make laws this way through skeleton Bills. Whatever your Lordships’ views about the state of industrial relations in this country, we should all agree—across this House— that a rushed process which puts power over making laws in the hands of Ministers without proper parliamentary oversight is simply not right. I make that appeal to all Members of this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, quite rightly said that she welcomed the affirmative procedure in relation to the secondary legislation. However, let me remind her of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who said on 12 January in the debate on the Select Committee report that nobody
“could reasonably argue that secondary legislation is as effectively scrutinised as primary … Secondary legislation is unamendable. It can be passed or rejected but it cannot be amended. Secondary legislation is unamendable. It can be passed or rejected but it cannot be amended.”—[Official Report, 12/1/23; col. 1537.]
and that is not proper scrutiny in terms of the principles addressed in this Bill.
In that same debate, which I had the honour of responding to on behalf of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, a former Minister, said that
“when laws are passed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, they cease to be just technical, as they threaten the rights and freedoms of the individual.”—[Official Report, 12/1/23; col. 1532.]
Are not those words absolutely right in the context of this Bill? The noble Lord also reminded us in that debate that the excuse that excessive delegated powers are needed because Parliament cannot move quickly enough has been proved false on many occasions, not least by this Parliament’s reaction to Covid legislation.
Of course, noble Lords in this debate have referred to Jacob Rees-Mogg, a declared supporter of the Bill’s aims. He said in the Commons that
“this is not emergency legislation”
as the Conservatives had been contemplating these sorts of actions since 2016, and criticised its lack of detail when instead it
“should set out clearly what it is trying to achieve”.
He also said, as we have heard, that the Bill is badly written and an
“extreme example of bad practice.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/01/23; cols. 88-92.]
That should be enough for this Chamber to say, “This Bill is bad”. However, what of Rees-Mogg’s policy objectives of imposing minimum service levels to replace what I believe, and what noble Lords have tried to put across tonight, is the current effective system of agreement between unions and employers for cover during industrial action, instead of the “one size fits all” mandate from Ministers?
I must admit that I always enjoy the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. Evoking the 1970s and 1980s is fair game, I am sure, but it is not reality or where we are today. My noble friend Lord Liddle was right: things have moved on. A lot of that legislation which imposed ballots has resulted in much stronger and more effective mandates. When British Airways are threatened with a massive mandate for industrial action, it cannot wait for that strike to take place. The cost to them has already hit because people cancel their bookings. They are not going to risk carrying on.
That is not what this is about. We do not need to evoke the 1970s and the 1980s. This is not about people pushing things to the limit. This is about our public services—our nurses and the people who support those nurses. In every element, these people have shown their worth in the last two years. That is what we should focus on.
Is this legislation going to do what it says it is intended to do? The simple fact, as we heard again in this debate, is that it will not. Mark Phillips, the chief executive officer of the Railway Safety and Standards Board, told a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference last October:
“If you introduce minimum service levels there’s the huge issue of how is that level set, and particularly if you set that minimum level and you’ve rostered staff to work. I would suggest you’d probably have a much higher level of sickness arise because of that because people won’t want to be seen to be breaking the strikes that their colleagues are involved in.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, what is the minimum standard level? There are many people who would love a minimum standard level, and they are certainly not receiving it at the moment. It is not just Avanti West Coast: every train service coming into London suffers from a shortage of staff; every hospital suffers from a shortage of staff; every GP surgery suffers from a shortage of staff. Why? It is because we are not attracting enough staff to do the job; we are relying, as the noble Baroness said in her maiden speech, on people’s commitment to public service. That is not sufficient to run a 21st-century-standard service.
Until today, we have had no sign of an impact assessment for this Bill. This morning, the RPC published its opinion of the impact assessment. The Minister is going to have to put a very brave face on that. It received it on 2 February, several weeks after the Bill had already been introduced to Parliament. It was red-rated: not fit for purpose. How can we scrutinise this legislation with that sort of back-up? The real criticism is the insufficient assessment of the impacts of the Bill on small and micro businesses, which is required under the Government’s own Better Regulation framework. I tried to read the 54 pages of the impact assessment, but we had it only an hour before this debate. I must admit that I was shocked by its amateurish nature, and especially by the impact on industrial relations.
My noble friend Lord Monks raised the fact that, when the Government tried to introduce minimum service levels in the transport strikes Bill, we had an impact assessment that said that minimum service levels could have a negative impact on industrial relations, increase the frequency of disputes, lead to greater use of action short of strike, and increase operational costs for employers, with a particularly onerous burden on smaller operators. That was in the first impact assessment, and this one tried to skate over all of that. Clearly it is not sufficient.
The Government are trying to hide the severe and disproportionate impact that their legislation will have on businesses, particularly small businesses. It is no wonder that they are trying to push this legislation and rush it through Parliament, because it really does not stand up to one bit of scrutiny.
The Bill does not define the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account when drafting regulations on minimum service levels. The only limitation on their powers is that the regulations may specify only services that fall within extremely wide categories: health services, education, fire and rescue, transport services, decommissioning nuclear installations, and  border security. These will cut across both the public and private sectors and could include ancillary as well as core operational roles. Power is given to the Secretary of State to determine the scope of these services by regulation, without any guidance from Parliament.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent ancillary staff being included, nor to prevent the legislation extending to a wide range of forms of transport, from taxis to passenger flights. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, talking about extending it to all kinds of services, including the ground crew. I am sure some people want to see an extension to ban strikes—a fundamental right. When we talk about conditions in China or Russia, we are quick to defend people’s right to organise—and quite right too. These rights are well fought after, and we should protect them, not allow them to be attacked in this way.
As the TUC asked in its excellent briefing on the Bill, what will a minimum level of service be? It could even mean a service at 90% of normal levels or an entire group of workers could be prevented from taking industrial action. In exercising these wide powers, a Secretary of State may “amend, repeal or revoke”, as my noble friend said in her introduction, and is empowered to do the same for Acts of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd. What are these draconian powers for?
One looks at the Bill and sees how undemocratic it is and how it cannot possibly work in practice. What is it for? The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is absolutely right: I can see the election posters now, but it does not help our public services.
It is not only employees and trade unions that are concerned; I know that employers are deeply concerned, because some of the biggest employers in the public and private sector have told me that they are. They are very concerned about the complete lack of consultation. A Bill is brought in; nobody is consulted; consultation starts late and is only in three categories. As I said, it is not clear exactly who is covered by these categories.
I also want to raise the question of ILO conventions and the position of international labour standards. There is no obligation to ensure that the regulations are consistent with ILO conventions. We know that the ILO has already raised concerns about existing UK labour law which the Government have failed to address.
I appreciate the meeting my noble friend and I had with the Minister about the Bill. We had a good and frank exchange and I asked whether the Government will publish their assessment of why the Bill is compatible with international law. He said, “Oh no. We don’t publish legal advice.” I do not want the legal advice; I want the Government’s assessment of how they reached their conclusion that the Bill meets our obligations. I want to hear or see the political decision, not the legal advice. I want to know whether they have done a correct assessment of what pertains in Spain and France. What statutory rights do workers and trade unions have? The collective agreements are totally different; the organisation is totally different. It is not a fair comparison. As the ILO has stated, we now have much greater restrictions on the power of trade unions to organise.
I know that I have gone on for quite a long time, but I conclude with this point. [Interruption.] Well, it needed to be said, and I am sorry if people are bored with the repetition, but as we move to Committee, let me assure noble Lords that we will probe this Government to produce the evidence for why they have introduced this Bill. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady said in her opening speech, this Bill is unfair, undemocratic and unworkable, which is why we are committed to repealing it in its entirety at the soonest possible date.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on what is, in the Government’s view, a very important Bill. There is clearly a wealth of expertise on this topic across the House, not least among the large number of ex-trade union general secretaries we seem to have on the Opposition Benches, who have all contributed well. Of course, I sense the strong feeling on this issue. As is usual in this House, we have had a thorough and engaging debate; most of the speeches have been thoughtful and I certainly listened with interest to what Members had to say.
I start, as many others did, by congratulating my noble friend Lady O’Neill on her excellent maiden speech. Unlike some others, she kept it relatively uncontroversial. It is a pleasure to see her in place today, and I am glad she has chosen this debate to make the first of what I am sure will be many well-informed contributions. I first met my noble friend during a visit to Cory’s Riverside Heat Network a few years ago and I am delighted, as an energy Minister, that we are welcoming someone with such a passion for energy. She has done some tremendous work as Bexley Council leader; she pioneered its decarbonisation vision and made Bexley a flagship Conservative borough. My noble friend and I have many things in common. We both have Irish parents: she has two and I have one. We both started our careers in local government. Hers was considerably more successful than mine: she became a council leader, and I was one Conservative out of 66 councillors in Gateshead. So, she did much better than I did in that respect. Congratulations to her on an excellent maiden speech.
I will do my best to respond to as many as possible of the contributions made and issues raised, but as always, time is limited and I apologise in advance if I do not have enough time to address everybody’s contribution. Let me start with concerns about the design of the Bill, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady, Lady Donaghy, Lady Whitaker, Lady Jones and Lady Kennedy, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger, Lord Monks, Lord Prentis, Lord Whitty, Lord Fox and Lord Collins, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, my noble friend Lord Balfe and probably some others I have missed. I maintain that it is right that the detail of specific services and minimum service levels be set out in secondary legislation—that is not something for primary legislation. As a number of Members have observed, the Government published consultations on establishing MSLs in ambulance services and fire and rescue services on 9 February. Yesterday, we published a consultation on minimum service levels for rail.
It is entirely proper and legitimate for the Government to enable employers, employees, trade unions and their members and, most of all, of course, the public, who are affected by all of this, to contribute to the consultations. We had a lot of contributions from so-called vested interests, but we did not have much on behalf of the great British public. So, they will all be able to contribute and the Government will seek approval from both Houses of Parliament before any regulations come into force. I can also confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that we would expect to engage ACAS as part of the consultation process.
When it comes to the sectors included in the Bill—mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady, Lady O’Neill and Lady Randerson, as well as my noble friends Lady Browning, Lord Dobbs and Lord Greenhalgh—as I said in my introduction, the key sectors covered are broadly the same set that were listed as important public services in the Trade Union Act 2016 and which have long been recognised as important because of the far-reaching consequences for members of the public who are not involved in any way in that dispute.
As many other Members have done, I pay tribute to what I thought was a very moving speech by my noble friend Lady Browning. It was a heartfelt contribution, explaining personally how people have to live with the increased anxiety of not being able to get an ambulance during a strike. They have had to adjust their lives accordingly. I totally agreed with her contribution. It demonstrates the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public and why, therefore, this legislation is needed, especially for health services. As she said, minimum service levels aim to relieve that mindset. It is therefore only right that these sectors are included within the scope of the legislation.
Many people have been left worrying about whether an ambulance will be there when they need it. The rail strikes have left people unable to access their work, their healthcare and, in many cases, their education. Some people have probably been unable to access their church services, led by the right reverend Prelate, although we would need to consult further on whether that would be regarded as an essential service.
With regard to the specific transport services, as raised by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the Government have identified passenger rail as a priority to be consulted for implementation first. My noble friend Lord Leicester explained why, quoting the relevant statistics on the impact of rail strikes from the Centre for Economics and Business Research. The direct cost of all strikes and the indirect cost of worker absences due to rail strikes so far is at least £1.7 billion over the eight-month period to January 2023. The Opposition are very keen to talk about nurses and healthcare; I note that they are slightly less keen to talk about rail strikes. Cebr also says that
“unresolved industrial disputes are having an adverse impact on growth”
at a time when many forecasters expect the economy to be in recession.
Before minimum service levels are introduced in any other transport services, we would, of course, consult to ensure that all evidence and stakeholder  views are fully considered. This would include employers and industry experts. Obviously, we recognise that each transport service is unique and consultation will be key to ensure that we get this right. As regards other services, I am happy to confirm to my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Government currently have no plans to implement minimum service levels on coffee or sweet shops.
I reassure the number of noble Lords who expressed concern about the powers in the Bill to amend primary legislation, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger, Lord Monks and Lord Whitty, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. Before I turn to Clause 3, I want to be clear that proposed new Sections 234B and 234F contain no such Henry VIII powers. There is no intention or ability to use Henry VIII powers to set the minimum service levels. These powers are strictly limited to Clause 3, and the powers in this clause can be exercised only to make amendments that are necessary to give effect to the Bill; they are therefore truly consequential. It is a standard clause included in much legislation, with standard wording. Drafting includes the references to Acts passed later in the same Session for the simple reason that those Acts might have been drafted before this Bill becomes an Act, and therefore may not take it into account. That is the only reason.
Many noble Lords spoke in a greatly entertaining way about the international comparisons that the Government are using when referring to this legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, referred to this, as did the noble Lords, Lord Allan and Lord Strasburger. As I said in my introduction, most major European countries have some version of minimum service levels for their key public services. In fact, many countries go further. Some, such as the USA, Australia and Canada, go much further and ban strikes completely in some blue-light services. As noble Lords will know, the approach to setting minimum services levels differs from country to country, taking into account their different circumstances; but can we please not have some of the wild exaggerations that some noble Lords made about the consequences of this legislation. This is common across many other perfectly well-functioning liberal democracies.
Many Opposition Peers also accused the Government of focusing on legislating and not on resolving the disputes. We have always said that we wanted to reach an agreement. Ministers across government have been meeting with the trade unions to attempt to resolve these disputes where it is possible to do so and, crucially, where it is affordable to the taxpayer. In some cases, I am pleased to say that settlements are being reached. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, observed, just this afternoon, while we were in this Chamber, the Government have published a joint statement with the Royal College of Nursing announcing their agreement to enter a process of intensive talks. Both sides are committed to a fair and reasonable settlement.
There is no question that industrial action can have a disproportionate impact on everyone: on members of the public who rely on essential services to get to work or to care for their families; on the NHS trying  to get the backlog down; on schools trying to recover the lost learning after the pandemic; and on local businesses whose sales and productivity suffer. We need to have confidence that, when workers strike, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at risk. It is therefore necessary, in our view, to have the power to act if required.
A number of noble Lords were entirely reasonable to raise the devolved Administrations and their involvement. The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Randerson, were right to mention this important issue. However, the plain fact is that industrial relations is a reserved matter. The Government have a duty to protect the lives and livelihood of their citizens across Great Britain. The disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public are no less severe on people in Scotland or Wales, and they have every right to expect the Government to act to ensure that they can continue to access vital public services during strikes. We obviously recognise that, in some cases, this will affect employers operating services which are devolved. The Government have published consultations on the application of MSLs for ambulance services, fire and rescue services, and rail services. As part of the development of MSLs in those areas, and the consultations that are legally required to inform these, we will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations on the geographical scope of the regulations.
A number of noble Lords suggested that this could be a vehicle for firing workers—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Whitaker, the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger, Lord Monks and Lord Hain, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. Let me once again assure them that this is misleading as to what this legislation will actually do. The Bill equips employers to manage instances where a worker takes strike action despite being named on a work notice for that particular day of strike action by removing the employee’s automatic protection against unfair dismissal for industrial action. It is at the discretion of the particular employer, not the Government, as to what, if any, disciplinary action is taken in these circumstances. We hope that employers are fair and reasonable, and take this sort of action only where it is necessary. It is no different from employers managing instances of non-compliance for any other unauthorised absence.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, all spoke of the use of “reasonable steps” in the Bill. There are a range of steps that trade unions could take, and what is considered reasonable will depend on each specific situation. First and foremost, a trade union should not call a union member identified in a work notice as required to work on a particular day out on strike that day. The trade union could also encourage those individual members to comply with the work notice, and make it clear in their general communication with members that where members are named in a work notice, and therefore required to work on a particular day, they should attend work on that strike day.
A number of noble Lords spoke about our international obligations and considered arguments on this point were made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Allan. As we have said, the Government are confident that the Bill is compatible with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights. As all Ministers do, I had to sign a statement of compatibility before I introduced the Bill in this House and, as all Ministers do, I did that on legal advice. As the minimum service levels framework is developed, the Government will continue to uphold their international obligations, including those under the TCA.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Noakes speak passionately in her support of the Bill, and, in particular, about balancing the rights of the public with the rights of the ability of workers to strike. That is fundamentally what the Bill seeks to achieve. Other noble Lords spoke similarly on international labour obligations, including the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. Some have said that it is wrong for the Government to set minimum service levels via regulation, rather than via negotiation or independent arbitration. That point was also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Liddle.
We have consistently said that we hope we do not have to use the powers in the Bill and that, where possible, if unions can agree on voluntary arrangements where they are necessary, that is obviously better than having to legislate. Where we have to bring forward regulations, these will be subject to consultation and scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. We think that it is fair and reasonable to enable employers, employees, trade unions and their members, and the public as a whole, to participate in the process of setting minimum service levels, and then for them to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they are applied. This would not necessarily be the case if the minimum service level was simply agreed between the employer and the union.
It was right that the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke passionately about the naming of individuals as part of the Bill. To be clear, the Bill enables employers to issue work notices to specify the workforce required to achieve the minimum service level for that strike period. Trade unions are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that members identified in the work notice comply with that notice. Therefore, the trade union needs to see the work notice and know which union members may be named to be able to take those reasonable steps. Individuals named on a work notice will be notified of this as regards themselves only; the work notice will not be a public document. In addition, there are no sanctions or consequences for individuals if the minimum service level is not then achieved.
The impact assessment for the legislation has now been published, as a number of noble Lords observed. Overall, we expect the legislation to be of net benefit to the economy. We have of course noted the RPC’s comments and will consider whether it is possible to revise the impact assessment to address them. Impact  assessments will also be published for all subsequent regulations on minimum service levels. We believe that many of the concerns expressed by the RPC will be addressed when those are published.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, expressed concerns that union members would be targeted individually and unfairly by employers in work notices. The Bill is clear that an employer must not have regard to whether a worker is a member of a union, or a particular union, when issuing a work notice. Nor does the Bill do anything to diminish other protections against discrimination, which, I hope, addresses the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, suggested that the Bill enables unilateral variation of employment contracts. It is true that legislation made under the Bill will affect the relationship between some employers and some workers, and that they will be required to comply with it where applicable, but in that respect it is no different from most employment legislation. The Bill does not provide employers with powers to unilaterally vary employment contracts; it merely allows the giving of a work notice which adjusts the circumstances in which workers may lawfully go on strike. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that any of that is akin to unilateral variation.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, raised the existing life and limb law. Disproportionate impacts on the lives and livelihoods of the public still occur during strikes, despite Section 240 of the 1992 Act being in place. The aims of MSLs are to balance the ability to strike with the rights of the public to access the vital services they depend on during those strikes. The purpose of Section 240 is to allow for criminal prosecutions for those who intentionally and maliciously endanger life or cause serious injury to a person by going on strike. In my view, these are two fundamentally different aims, and, as my noble friend Lady Noakes flagged up, the right to access key services clearly goes beyond life and limb.
I will also take on board and consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the Home Office guidance in the Manchester Arena tragedy and follow that up with him.
Finally, a number of noble Lords rightly raised the issue of the pressure that the cost of living is putting on people and our public services. That is why we have committed to halving inflation and growing the economy, and why we have provided £26 billion to support individuals and businesses. We are investing billions more in schools, the NHS and social care, and all that of course supports those who work in those services. The Government respect the vital work that public sector workers do on the front line to protect the lives of others—a point we have made a number of times and will continue to make.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I reiterate what I said in my opening remarks: the Government support workers’ ability to strike; it is an important part of industrial relations that is rightly  protected by law. The Bill seeks to maintain a balance between the ability to strike on the one hand, and on the other the public’s right not to be subjected to disproportionate impacts as they try to go about their daily lives and access essential public services. My noble friend Lord Patten was right when he said that striking the balance between the ability to strike and the right of the public to be safe and protected is difficult, but we believe that our approach is a proportionate way to provide this important balance. I am happy to confirm to him that the Government have no intention of banning the ability to strike. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs so eloquently put it, the Bill is intended to keep the country working.
To encourage further engagement with the Bill, links to the consultations will be circulated to participating Peers after this debate. In the meantime, I of course  look forward to discussing the Bill further with Members in Committee. With that, I beg to move.
Bill read a second time.

Commitment and Order of Consideration Motion

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule, Clauses 2 to 6, Title.
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 9.27 pm.